s 


cf/RixTfAM  smnm 


/ 


s»v 


utsm**  *utm*wi 


i  ■ ' ''- 


LETTERS 
ON  THE  MODE  AND  SUBJECTS 

OF 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM 

ADDRESSED   TO 

the  members  of  the  united  congregations  of  georgf^s 
Creek  and  the  Tent, 


By  ASHBEL  G*FAIRCHILD, 

THEIR   PASTOR, 


Isa  LIf.  14  15.  "As  many  were  astonished  at  thee,  his  visage  was  so 
marred  more  than  any  man,  and  his  form  more  than  the  sons  of  men;  so 
shall  lie  SPRINKLE  MANY  NATIONS.  Matth.  XXVIII.  19.  Teach 
ALL  NATIONS,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 


UNIONTOWN. 
PRINTED  r,v  William  H.  Wihtton. 

is:  JO 


In  the  miMication  of  the  following  letters,  the  authap 
has  consulted  the  wishes  of  some  of  the  people  of  his  charge* 
who  were  of  opinion  that  most  of  the  treatises  on  baptism 
are  too  large,  and  too  learned,  for  the  bulk  of  reader?.— 
He  has  endeavored  to  compress  the  leading  argument  on 
th^  subject  within  as  narrow  a  compass  as  possible,  choos- 
ing rather  to  omit  some  important  particulars,  thar  o  tire 
the  patience  of  the  reader.  His  principal  aim  has  been  to 
accommodate  the  style  and  reasoning  to  the  most  moderate 
capacity.  His  own  people,  for  whom  they  are  intended, 
know  that  an  unusual  amount  of  ministerial  duties  have 
lately  devolved  u  r»n  him,  a  rrpared  to  overlook  the 

imperfections  which  he  has  uot  had  time  to  remove* 


IETTE&T, 

On  tuo  uode  of  Baptism, 

Christian  Brethren, 

In  the  investigation  of  any  question,  relating  to 
dodrine  or  duty,  our  first  inquiry  should  be,  "What  say  the  ycripiiues!** 
However  plausible  the  theories  which  men  may  adopt,  and  however  in- 
geniously they  may  be  defended,  if  «.hey  do  not  agree  with  the  testimony 
of  id,  they  are  unworthy  of  any  countenance.  A  strict  regard  to  i  hie 
principle  will  prove  of  essential  benefit  to  us  in  the  discussion  of  the  sub 
ec  .mder  consideration.  The  zealous  advocates  of  immersion  censure 
us  for  not  complying  with  their  mode  of  Baptism.  In  this  case,  our  pro- 
per course  is  to  appeal  to  the  Scriptures.  Do  they  contain  any  com- 
mand for  dipping  or  immersion'  No,  not  one.  The  command  is  to  oap- 
tize;  and  this  is  not  a  command  to  dip,  as  is  easily  proved  by  a  number 
of  passages  where  the  sense  in  which  tire  sacreo  writers  used  the  word 
dearly  appears. 

The  meaning  of  tlie  word  Baptize. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  refer  you  to  he  original  Greek,  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  this  word,  for  it  can  be  discovered  by  ?ny  one  wit©  reads  our 
English  translation.  Take  the  words  of  John  the  Baptist  in  Math.  -II. 
11.  "He  (Christ)  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fiie," 
•end  let  me  ask  what  is  the  meaning  of  Baptize  in  this  passage?  D  qs 
it  signify  the  same  as  dip  or  plunge?  He  shall  "dip  or  pluuge  yon  into 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  into  the  fire!!  Surely  an  interpretation  so  shocking 
oannot  for  a  moment  be  tolerated  by  anyone  who  has  the  slightest  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Scriptures.  But  again  let  me  ask  how  this  piop.ie- 
cy  of  John  was  fulfilled.  A  little  before  the  day  of  Penticost,  our  bless- 
ed Saviour  said  to  his  disc  ijles,  "John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  I  L>!y  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  Acts,  I.  5. 
and  when  theday  arrived,  bow  were  they  baptized?  By  being  dipped  or 
plunged  in  the  Holy  Ghost?  No,  but  by  the  Spirit  POLKED 
OUT  on  them.  For  Peter,  on  tha t  very  occasion,  decla  ed  that  therein 
was  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Joe),  in  which  God  said,  "1  will  pour  out  of 
my  spirit/'  Again  I  ask  how  were  the  disciples  baptized  with  fire'  By 
beingdipped  or  plunged  into  cloven  tongues  of  fire?  No.  Inthe  ,-J, 
verse  it  is  said  that  tongues  SAT  UPON  them.         See  Acts,  II  3. 

Inn  aware  that  some  ingenious  writers  have  labored  to  prove  tha:  he 
Apostles  were  immersed  ina  wind,  and  in  support  of  *heir  opinion,  (|t.«  fee 
Acs  II,  2,  "and  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  AS  OF  a 
mighty  rushing  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sit- 
ting." But  here  we  discover  that  it  is  not  said  that  there  was  a  wind  in 
the  bouse,  but  that  the  sound  which  came  from  heaven  was  like  the*  und 
ot  a  mighty  rushing  wind,  ki .  d  his  sound  U^-d  •  lervaded  the  whole 
fcotise,    So  then  the  promise  of  the  baptism  oi  the  tioiy  ohust  was  fuj- 


filled  by  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  we  sec  that  to  ex- 
plain the  word  baptize  by  dip  or  plunge  leads  to  the  greatest  extravi- 
gances. 

The  expression  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  very  often  occurs  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  sacred  writers  always  explain  it  of  the  Spirit's  in- 
fluences shed  down,  poured  out  or  falling  upon  a  person.  Thus  Acts  If 
17  "I  will  POUR  OUT  of  my  spirit.  Acts  X.  44,  The  Holy  Ghost  FELL 
ON  all  them  that  heard  the  word,1'  Titus  III.  5,  6,  "The  washing  of  re- 
generation and  the  renewing  of  tne  Holy  Ghost  shed  on  us  [we  are  not 
dipped  in  it]  abundantly  through  Jesu3  Christ."  Some  suppose  that  by 
the  washing  of  regeneratien  is  meant  being  "born  of  water,"  and  by  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  being  "born  of  the  spirit,"  as  our  Saviour 
says  "born  of  water  and  of  the  spirit."  If  so,  it  proves  beyond  a  doubt 
that  the  water  of  baptism  is  to  be  shed  down  or  sprinkled  upon  the  sub- 
ject. 

Such  is  the  account  which  the  inspired  writers  give  us  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  such  their  explanation  of  the  meaning  they  attach 
ed  to  the  word  baptize.  But  some  Baptist  writers  seem  to  think  they 
can  give  a  better  explanation  of  their  own.  They  do  not  indeed  dare  to 
say  that  men  were  dipped  or  plunged  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  that  they 
were  overwhelmed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  What  do  they  mean  by  this  un- 
scriptural  expression?  Bo  they  use  it  as  a  softer  word  for  dipping  or 
immersion  in  the  Holy  Spirit?  Or  do  they  mean  by  it  something  less 
than  immersion,  as  pouring  for  instance?  If  so,  they  give  up  the  point  in 
dispute.  But  if  they  mean  that  the  faculties  of  men  were  overwhelmed 
or  disordered  by  the  spirit,  this  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  For  the 
Apostles  were  never  in  more  complete  possession  of  their  mental  facul- 
ties than  they  were  on  the  day  of  Penticost,  after  receiving  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  This  would  not  have  been  the  case  if  the  faculties  of 
their  minds  had  been  overwhelmed.  At  any  rate  the  scriptures  tell  us  that 
men  were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  by  having  the  spirit  poured  out, 
shed  down  or  falling  upon  them,  and  the  inference  is  that  they  were  al- 
so baptized  with  water,  by  having  the  water  poured,  shed  down,  or  falling 
upon  them,  and  this  is  enough  for  our  purpose. 

The  baptism  before  dinner- 

Further,  to  show  that  the  inspired  writers  did  not  use  the  word  Baptize 
to  signify  dip  or  plunge  we  refer  you  to  Luke  XI.  37,  38,  where  we  are 
told  that  the  Pharisee  marvelled  that  Jesus  had  not  washed  before  din 
ner.  The  word  translated  washed,  is  in  the  original  cbaptisthe,  from 
baptizo  to  baptize;  literally  rendered  thus  "He  marvelled  that  Jesus  was 
not  baptized  before  dinner."  But  did  he  wonder  that  Jesus  was  not  im- 
mersed? No,  for  this  washing,  or  as  it  is  in  the  eriginal  baptizing,  is 
explained  in  Mark  VII.  3,  4,  whence  it  appears  that  the  Pharisee,  accord- 
ing to  their  traditions,  washed  their  hands  always  before  they  ate;  and  it 
seems  that  the  Pharisee  with  whom  our  Saviour  took  dinner  wondered  that 
he  had  not  complied  with  the  tradition.  From  the  whole,  it  appears, 
then  that  when  a  persons  hands  only  were  washed,  the  person  himself  was 
said  to  be  baptized  according  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  word 


The  baptizing  of  tables  or  couches. 

In  Mark  VII  4,  wc  read  of  another  tradition  respecting  "washing  o 
cups,  of  pots,  of  brazen  vessels,  and  tables.  The  word  washing  is  in  the 
Greek  baplismous,  baptisms;  and  the'word  translated  tables  is  klinai,  prop- 
erly the  couches  on  which  the  Jews  lay  at  their  meals  So  that  here  is  the 
baptism  of  tables  or  couches.  Was  this  performed  by  immersion  ?Did  die 
Jews  take  their  couches  to  a  river  and  plunge  them  under  water?  No  one 
will  say  so  who  has  the  slightest  acquaintance  with  Jewish  antiquities. — 
It  appears  then,  that  by  a  baptism,  the  Evangelist  Mark  did  not  mean  an 
immersion. 

Nebuchadnezzar  baptized  xrith  dew. 

In  Daniel  IV.  24,  25,  is  the  pr>  phecy,  that  the  king  should  eat  grass 
aa  an  oxen,  and  be  wet  with  the  dew  of  Heaven.  The  word  wet,  is  in  the 
Greek  of  the  Seventy  bapto,  the  root  ufbaptizo  to  baptize:  Hence  it  ap- 
pears that.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  baptized  with  the  dew  of  Heaven.  But 
how?  by  immersion  or  by  sprinkling? 

More  instances  of  the  same  kind  might  be  produced,  but  enough  has 
been  said  to  satisfy  you,  that  the  word  baptize  was  not  used  by  the  Sa- 
cred waters  to  signify  dip  or  plunge.  And  hen^e,  we  so  often  meet  with 
the  expression  to  baptize  WITH  tenter,  not  under  water,  as  it  would  stand 
if  the  word  meant,  to  dip  or  plunge*  In  Luke  III.  10  the  following 
words  are  found,  kudatibapUzo  humas.  Literally  WITH  water  I  baptize 
"you."  Here  in  parsing  hudati  with  water,  without  a  preposition,  the  very 
rule  of  grammar  which  is  quoted,  shows  that  the  water  was  the  instrument 
with  which  the  ]>erson  was  baptized;  and  the  idea  conveyed  is,  that  the 
water  was  applied  to  the  person,  not  the  person  to  the  water. 

Some  Baptist  writers,  seem  to  place  great  reliance  upon  human  air 
ity,  and  bring  forward  an  array  of  great  names  on  their  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. But  if  the  questien  were  to  be  decided  by  men's  opinions,  I  Could 
produce  three  times  as  many  learned  men  against  them.  1  trust  1  have 
explained  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize  by  Scripture  itself,  which  is  al- 
Vyays  the  safest  guide,  j 


*  Who  would  say  1  din  or  plunge  vou  with  water. 

f  The  word  baptiza  tu  baptize  is  no  nrfiere  translated  to  dip  in  the  New 
Testament.  Schleusner  and  Parkhurst,  two  of  the  most  eminent  Lexicogra- 
phers, say  that  it  is  not  used  in  auch  a  sense  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
Heathen  writers  indeed  seem  to  have  made  use  of  the  word,  to  signify  tithei 
a  greater  or  less  degree  of  wetting.  Scapula  and  Stephanus  render  the 
word  bj  lavo  and  abluo  and  Suidas  by  ntadefacio,  lavo,  abluo,  purgo,  rnundo, 
to  moisten,  to  wash,  to  cleanse.  Origan,  a  Greek  writer  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, speaking  of  the  Touring  of  the  water  on  the  wood  by  order  of  Elijah, 
uses  the  word  baptizo,  and  calls    it  a   baptising  of  the  wo<od 

Sydenham  quotes  a  Greek  oracle  as  saying  asicus  baptizei  dunai  de  toi  ou 
themis  esti.  Baptize  him  as  a  leal/ton  Lottie  (which  floats)  and  do  not  dip 
him  under.  Here  b'antUo,  to  wet  partially,  is  contrasted  with  dunai  to  clip 
under. 

Th«re  is  another  in  tance  taken  from  Robertson's  and  Scbrevelius' 
l<:\i<-nn  -v  I  ,  ig, — 


The  Greeks. 

It  is  srjqetimcs  urged  that  the  Greeks,  "who  best  understand  thei™ 
own  language  baptize  their  children  by  immersion.'"  1  answer  iti.t.  lie 
modern  Greeks  do  not  understand  the  ancient  Greek,  in  which  the  New 
Testament  was  written,  any  better  than  we  do.  They  speak  a  language 
almost  as  widely  different  from  it  as  the  Italian  is  from  the  Latin  And 
it  ha?  becoma  necessary  to  translate  the  New  Testament  into  their  p.es- 
out  language,  to  enable  them  to  understand  ii  So  then  their  aut  on- 
ly, as  it  respects  the  ancient  Greek,  is  no  better  than  that  of  an  American. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  the  practice  of  immersion  with  some  of  th*m, 
originated  from  the  opinion  they  hold,  that  baptism  cleanses  from  sin,  — 
Hence  they  concluded  that  the  more  water  the  better,  and  proceeded  oy 
degrees  to  bipti?:  e  ihcirckil Ircn  by  immersion. * 

John  Baptising  at  Jordan. 

Our  opponents  contend  that  immersion  must  be  the  right  mode  of  bap- 
tism, because  say  they  "we  read  of  their  baptizing  at  rivers."  But  who. 
I  ask,  baptized  at  a  river?  None  but  John  the  Baptist  and  even  he  only 
a  pa"' of  the  time,  for  we  afterwards  find  hira  baptizing  at  Enon,  Joh» 
HI.  23 


"Tbn^  Bapleim.cn  askonkudor  de  hvgron  dunai  potc.  He  indeed  baptizet  • 
tcathern  bottle  but  il  never  goes  under  the  liquid  water. 

To  this  we  may  add  a  well  known  case  taken  from  an  ancient  poem  as? 
eribed  to  Homer,  in  which  the  lake  is  said  to  be  baptized  with  the  blood  of  a 
frog.  Ebapletodp  aimati  limne porphureo.  The  lake  was  not  dipped  in  the 
bleed  »f  tbe  frog,  but  was  sprinkled  therewith. 

We  could  easily  multiply  authorities  if  necessary.  The  truth  is  no  hon- 
est man,  who  understands  the^Greek  tongue,  can  deny  that  the'word  is  often 
used  ameng  heathen  writers  to  signify  a  partial  application  of  water. 

If  the  sacred  writers  had  intended  to  enjoin  dipping  as  the  mode  of  baptism 
they  could  have  used  the  word  dupto  and  duno,  which  always  signify  to 
dip. 

*  In  some  portions  of  the  Greek  church  immersion  may  be  practised,  hot 
>n  others  it  is  not .  Sir.  J  oseph  Huber  o(  Danville  Ky.  in  a  letter  to  the  ed- 
itor of  the  "Pedobaptist,'  a  periodical  published  at  that  place,  writes,  "1  re- 
■cid*.!  upwards  of  three  vears  in  the  capitol  of  the  Grand  Seignior's  dominions 
sa  aGreekfamily  of  the  first  respecSbility.  During  that  time  1  was  present 
at  four  b  plisms,  two  in  the  family  and  two  in  the  immediate  neighborhood:"" 
- — "The  company  r?ere  all  seated  on  the  sofas  around  the  roam.  ,i  rable 
stood'in  the  middle  with  a  ba.on  of  water  on  it.  Tne  Papa,  or  i*riest  was 
th».n  sent  for,  who  upon  entering  the  room  was  received  by  lhe  father  of  the 
fttfant  and  led  to  the  baptismal  water,  which  he  consecrated  with  a  short 
prayer,  and  the  sigu  ot  the  cross:  then  the  mother  presented  to  him  her  'iabe 
Which  he  laid  on  his  left  arm.  and  in  the  name  of  the  Father.  Son  aod  Holy 
f>ho«t  he  thrice  dipped  his  hand  intotho  water  and  dropped  s&me  of  it  on  Ike 
chihVs  foreheud  giving  it  a  name.  1  may  hore  remark  (he  adds)  that  1  never 
Jieurd  during  my  stay  in  Constantinople  >f  adult  baptisms  nor  of  the  ordinance 
r'**'v>z  performed  by  immersion  in  a  single  instance.  [See  Evang.  Luth. 
intell.  Sept.  1829  Shall  w**  supposs  that  these  Greeks  "understand  their 
•own  language"  or  not?    What  6hrrll  we  say  of  their  practising  infant  sprinb- 


f  shall  show,  m  a  suitable  place,  that,  we  are  not  to  take  pattern  iiou 
John's  baptism,  but  from  Christ's.  But  supposing  for  argument's  sake 
that  we  are  to  follow  John.  What  proof  is  there  that  he  immersed ?— 
Uf  one  but  the  circumstance  that  he  baptized  a  part  of  the  time  at  Jordan 
Our  Baptist  friends  say  that  he  chose  that  river  for  the  sake  «f deep  wa- 
ter for  immersion.  But  this  is  assertion  without  proof.  I  can  assign  a 
much  more  probable  reason  ,  fqr  John  spoke  uniformly  of  baptizing 
WITH,  (not  under)  water.  John  appeared  m  the  wilderness  of  Judea,  in 
fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  that  he  should  be -'the.  voice  of  one  crying 
in  the  wilderness.**  iVow  it  is  well  known  that  that  wilderness  is  very 
scarce  of  water  And  as  the  river  Jordan  ran  through  it,  there  was  no 
other  as  suitable  place  of  resort  where  the  immense  multitudes  that 
flocked  to  his  baptism,  could  obtain  water  for  themselves  and  their  beasts 
to  drink.  For  we  read  that  "Judea  and  all  Jerusalem  and  ihe  region 
round  aboutJordan  came  to  John  &.  was  baptized.  Math.  III.  5.  This 
^ceouat  of  the  matter  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  John  afterwards  re- 
moved  to  Enon.  a  short  distance  from  Jordan  'because  there  wes  much 
water  there  "  Tnis  much  water  (in  the  Greek  polla  hudato)  as  travellers 
tell  us,  consists  of  a  number  of  small  springs  of  good  wholesome  water. 
much  preferable  fordrink  to  that  of  Jordan  And  ibis  accounts  for  John':: 
removal  thither;  for  if  he  had  wanted  deep  water  to  immerse  he  would 
not  bave  left  Jordan. 

Our  Baptist  friends  urge  that  it  is  said,  Matth.  Ill,  that  they  were  bap* 
tizedire  Jordan.  But  this  does  not  prove  that  they  were  immersed;  for 
the  Israelites  are  said  to  have  been  baptized  in  the  sea,  1  Cor.  X.  2. 
and  we  know  that  they  were  not  immersed.  And  in  Josh.  III.  13,  the 
Priests  are  represented  as  standing  in  Jordan,  and  yet  from  the  8th  vers© 
of  the  chapter  it  appears  tnat  they  only  stood  at  the  brink  of  the  river. 
It  is  agreed  that  the  Greek  word  en  translated  in  is  rerdered  at'ii  more 
than  one  hundred  places  in  the  new  Testament,  and  in  an  hundred  and 
fifty  others  it  is  translated,^.  If  it  be  so  interpreted  here  that  John  bap- 
tized the  people  at  Jordan,  there  is  no  proof  that  he  plunged  his  disciples 
under  the  water,  no  more  than  the  fact  recorded  in  history  that  AleNan- 
der's  soldiers  entered  a  stream  to  drink,  proves  that  they  went  under  the 
water. 

Whether  wq  should  follow  John's  or  ChrhCs  baptism. 

After  all,  in  whatever  mode  John  baptized  his  followers,  it  can  be  uo 
example  for  us  to  follow.  Wv  are  not  to  take  paUera  from  Lis  baptism 
but  from  Christ's.  John's  baptism,  as  well  as  the  s*crtiiccs  and  eeremo* 
riies  of  the  old  [dispensation,  were  of  divine  authority  while  they  last 
od ;  but  are  not  now  in  force.  John  was  only  the  R  .reruBaer  of  on;  Lord 
and  his  baptism  was  only  preparatory  to,  and  superceded  by  that  efChrist 
who  instituted  his  baptism  afior  his  resurrection  and  just  befoie  his  is 
cersionto  heaven.     He  then  commanded   his  disciples  "tote..  L 

SUA     IONS,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father  &,  of  the  Son  and  of 
*ie  '  *   -  c      .  •     >    vi  ii  i      This  was  the  first  command   «,  >ap* 

*;ae  i;;  the-n«uue  i*l  um  rfaorrd  Trinity  John's  baptism  v:s  intended  cn!r 


8 

for  one  nation,  ihc  Jews;  but  Christ's  was  intended  for  "all  nations. " 
lohu  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father  Son  and  iloly  Ghost, 
for  those  whom  he  had  baptized  [Acts.  XIX.  2,  3.]  had  not  heard  of  a 
Holy  Ghost,  which  could  not  have  been  the  case,  ifthcy  had  been  bap 
tized  in  that  name. 

Though  the  Jews  generally  were  baptized  by  the  forerunner  ofeur 
Lord,  professing  repentance  and  the  expectation  that  the  Messiah  was 
about  to  make  his  appearance,  yet  when  he  actualy  appeared,  they  rejec- 
ted him,  and  joined  in  the  cry,  "crucify  him,  crucify  him."  Thus,  after 
our  Lord's  death,  and  just  before  Penticost,  only  one  hundred  and  twen 
1y  real  disciples  could  be  found  in  allJerusalem,  Acts,  1.  15-  * 

The  re-baptising  atEphesus. 

But  what  puts  this  matter  beyond  doubt,  is  the  account  we  have  of  the 
rebaptism  of  certain  disciples  whom  Paul  found  at  Ephesus,  and  who 
had  only  received  John's  baptism.  Read  Acts  XIX  from  the  1st.  to  the 
t>th  verse  inclusive.  When  these  disciples  had  assured  Paul,  "that  they 
had  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost ,1  he  asks 
them  "unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized."  The  very  question  implied 
that  there  had  been  more  than  one  institution  of  baptism,  and  he  would 
know  whether  they  had  received  John's  or  Christ's.  Accordingly  tley 
answered  "unto  John's  baptism-"  This  explained  the  matter,  for  John 
did  not  baptize  in  the  names  of  the  adorable  Trinity.  He  only  admin- 
istered the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  to  the  people  that  they  should 
believe  on  him  that  should  come  AFTER  HIM,  that  is  on  Christ  Jesus. 
Paul  having  given  this  explanation  to  the  disciples,  caused  them  to  re- 
ceive Christ's  baptism  from  the  hands  of  some  minister,  who  accompa- 
nied him  in  his  travels,  verse  5,  "when  they  heard  this  they  were  bapti- 
zed in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. |  i?ecause  John's  baptism  being 
now  done  away,  they  could  not  be  considered  regular  members  of  the 
church,  until  they  received  the  new  baptism  instituted  by  Christ. 

I  am  aware  that  some  of  our  Baptist  brethren  employ  many  ingenious 

*  It  must  be  quite  plain  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  that  the  old  dispensa- 
tion did  not  end,  nor  did  the  new  begin,  till  the  death  of  Christ.  He  obser- 
ved the  passover  and  other  Jewish  institutions  down  to  !hat  period.  The 
veil  of  the  temple,  which  hid  the  holy  of  holies  from  the  public  gaze,  was 
rent  at  the  death  of  our  Lord,  to  shew  that  the  Jewish  ritual  was  abolish- 
ed. John  preached  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  is  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation, was  at  hand,  and  not  that  it  had  already  come.  And  our  Lord  decla- 
red that  great  as  John  was,  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  gospel 
dispensation  was  greater  than  he.  And  John  said  of  Christ,  'He  must  in- 
crease but  I  must  decrease. "  John  III.  30.  We  hope  therefore  that  in 
saying  as  we  do,  that  John's  baptism  did  not  belong  to  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion, we  shall  not  be  charged  with  calling  it  a  heathen  baptism. 

f  This  expression  does  not  mean  that  they  were  baptized  with  the  Holy 
fjliost,  but  it  denotes  water  baptism.  For  it  is  said  of  the  Samaritans,  .#cts 
VIII.  16,  that  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  £ord  Jesus,  but  yet 
the  Holy  ohost  had  not  fallen  on  them,  and  after  the  Holy  ohost  had  fallen 
on  Carnelnis  and  his  friends,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 
Acts  X.  47,  4S. 


•■devices  to  obscttts  the  meaning  of  this  passage,  and  nothing  would  fcti 
more"  easy  than  to  refute  (heir  explanation  of  it.  But  J  need  oidy 
quote  the  sentiment  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  tho  roost  eminent  of  the 
English  Baptists.  He  says  "that  there  is  not,  ih  the  whole  compp.'c  ol 
theological  controversy,  a  stronger  instance  of  the  force  of  prejiulh  o  in 
obscuring  the  plain  meaning  of  a  passage  of  scripture,"  than  is  found  iu 
the  interpretations  of  some  of  his  Baptist  brethren.  And  he  ^csoa 
to  show  by  the  rules  of  grammar,  that  the  persons  on  whom  Paul  bid  hi* 
hands,  verse  G,Jweve  the  very  same  who  were  baptized  in  the  nan,  c  of  lid: 
Lord  Jesus,  verse  5,  so  lhat  by  the  construction  of  some  Baptist,  J'nul 
■•must have  laid  his  hands  upon  all  that  John  baptised,  (and  that,  too, 
before  he,  Paul  w^s  converted.)  and  that  (hey  all  spake  with  tongurn  &. 
prophesyed.  which  is  ineffably  absurd.*  Indeed  the  most  intelligent 
Baptists  of  our  day  with  Mr.  Hall,  have  given  up  John's  baptism.  And 
it  is  evident  from  Acts  XV11I.  25,  20,  that  such  asknow  no  other,  have 
need  of  some  Aqoilla  and  Friscilla  to  "expound  unto  them  tho  way  of 
<iod  more  perfectly." 

Our  Scfciow  baptized  by  John. 

Our  Baptist  friends  lay  such  great  stress  on  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  baptized 
by  John,  and  say  so  much  to  you  about  following  your  Lord  to  Jordan, 

(^pjrthat  it  is  necessary  we  should  give  the  subject  due  attention.  And 
a  little  examination  will  discover,  not  only  that  there  is  no  evidence  that 
he  was  baptized  by  immersion,  but  that  even  if  he  were>  it  cannet  be  any 
part  of  his  example  which  we  are  to  imitate.  All  the  pro6f  j  that  he  was 
immersed  is  derived  from  the  expression  "He  went  up  straightway  out  6t 
of  the  water;"  which  the  Baptists  suppose  tomean,  that  he  went  up 
from  under  the  water.  But  this  is  a  construction  which  the  words  will 
not  bear.  If  we  examine  th'e  words  in  the  originpl,  we  find  them  to  6e 
the  very  same  that  would  bo  used,  in  case  a  person  had  gone  down  the 
banks  to  the  edge  of  the  water.  The  word  apo,  here  translated  ovt  of 
more  commonly  signifies  from,  and  indeed  this  is  the  very  first  meaning 

'assigned  to  it  in  the  Lexicon.  So  that  the  language  proves  no  more, 
than  that  our  blessed  Saviour  ascended  the  banks  from  the  water,  and'eveh 
if  it  were  admitted  that  he  trod  into  the  edge  of  the  stream  for  the  Conve- 
nience of  -the  administrator,  it  would  be  far  from  proving  that  he  weiit 
under  the  water.j 

Why  Jesus  was  baptmed. 

But  as  much  is  said  about  following  bur  Saviour  to  Jordan,  let  us  in- 
'  quire  why  he  was  baptized.     We  observe 

.  1 .  Although  he  was  baptized  by  John,  yet  it  was  not  with  John's  bap 
tism,  for  that  was  the  baptism  of  Repentance,  arid  our  Lord  had  no  sin  to 
repent  of. 

*  See  Hall  on  communion  .    . 

t  The  ancients  wore  a  covering  for  only  the  soles  of  tbeir  feet  called  sab- 
dais  or  shoes.  And.yi  a  warm  climate  it  would  not  have  been  unpleasanftb 
step  intoaitrbam. 

2 


io 

2.  It  was  not  believer's  baptism,  for  that  would  be  to  believe  on  himself 
whereas  he  was  the  great  object  of  faith 

3.  Nor  was  it  a  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  SON  and  Holy 
'Ghost,  for  then  he  would  hate  been  baptized  in  his  own  name. 

So  then  it  was  neither  John's  baptism,  nor  believei's  baptism,  nor  a 
baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  that  he  received  How  then  can  it 
have  been  intended  as  an  example  for  ue?  Has  our  blessed  Lord,  have 
his  disciples  said  any  where  that  he  was  baptized  as  an  example 
for  us?  No  brethren.  Then  let  us  hear  the  true  reason  from  his  own 
lips.  John  seemed  at  first  unwilling  to  administer  the  ordinance  lest  the 
idea  should  be  conveyed,  that  Jesus  had  become  a  disciple  of  his;  an  idea 
which  some  in  our  day  are  fond  of  inculcating.  But  Jesus  said  to  him 
''Suffer  it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus  itbecometh  unto  fulfil  all  righteousness 
Matth.  III.  15.  Here  then  is  the  true  reason  of  his  baptism  from  his 
own  mouth.  Compare  it  with  wh4t  he  says,  Matth.  V.  17.  "Think  not 
that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets.  I  am  not  come  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfil.  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle 
shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled.  It  appears  there 
was  some  precedent,  some  type  exhibited  in  the  ancient  law  which  he 
was  to  fulfil  by  his  baptism.*  What  this  type  was  may  be  seen  in  Levit. 
VIII.  6,  and  Exodus  XXIX,  4.  The  priests  under  the  law,  were  types  of 
Christ;  and  as  they  were  set  apart  to  their  ministry  by  the  washing  of 
water,  so  our  Lord  the  great  anti-type  was,  through  his  forerunner, "in- 
troduced into  his  ministry  by  the  washing  of  water.  The  Aaronic  priests 
were  also  anointed  with  oil.  So  our  blessed  Lord  in  fulfilment  of  the  type, 
received  the  anointing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  Spirit  rested  on  him  in 
the  form  of  a  dove.  The  priests  under  the  law  entered  upon  their  office  at 
30  years  of  age,  and  this  accounts  for  the  fact,  that  our  Saviour  delayed 
his  baptism  till  that  age.  This  taken  m  connexion  with  the  words  of  the 
Father,  who  in  ah  audible  voice  from  heaven  proclaimed  "This  is  my  be- 
loved son,"  show  that  the  Lord  Je3us  was  just  entered  upon  the  duties  of 
iiis  ministry. 

Let  it  not  be  charged  upon  us,  that  we  are  making  the  Lord  Jesus  "a 
priest  after  the  order  of  Aaron,"  for  the  accusation  is  false.  We  say,  if 
there  is  any  truth  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Jewish  priests  were 
types  of  Christ,  and  these  types  were  fulfilled  b)  him.  And  this  is  the  on* 
ly  rational  or  scriptural  account  that  can  be  given  of  his  baptism.  To 
follow  him  then  in  this  particular,  is  to  follow  him  into  his  ministry.  Let 
us  not  attempt  this.  Let  us  imitate  him  daily  in  his  piety  toward  tho 
Father,  and  his  benevolence  to  mankind.  So  far  as  his  conduct  is  i mi- 
table  by  us,  let  us  daily  take  up  the  cross  and  come  after  him.  But  let  us 
r*ever  suppose  that  by  baptism  we  fulfil  all  righteousness,  so  that  we  may 
safely  dispense  with  such  duties  as  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  family 
prayer,  and  the  religious  education  of  our  children.  • 

*  The  righteousness  which  our  Saviour  fulfilled  by  his  baptism,  must  have 
"been  that  either  of  the  moral,  or  of  the  ceremonial  law.  It  could  not  have 
been  the  righteousness  of  the  moral  law,  for  that  law  did  not  require  his 
baptism*  We  must  then  look  to  the  ceremonial  law  for  the  true  reason  of  it. 


It 

BETTER  21, 

The  mode  of  baptism  continued. 

Christian  Brethren. 

In  my  former  letter  I  explained  the  nature  of  John's, 
baptism,  and  showed  the  true  reason  why  Jesus  was  baptized.  We  now  see 
with  what  propriety  our  Baptist  friends  refer  us  on  all  occasions  to  the 
third  chapter  of  Matthew,  to  find  out  how  baptism  is  now  to  be  performed. 
That  chapter  tells  us  only  of  John's  baptism,  which  neither  appears  to 
have  beer,  immersion,  nor  if  it  were,  could  it  be  binding  on  us  under 
the  new  dispensation.  If  we  would  know  how  baptism  is  now  to  be  ad- 
ministered, we  must  look  at  those  instances  of  it  which  occurred  after 
Christ  instituted  his  baptism.  This  took  place  as  we  have  seen,  not  till 
after  his  defth  and  resu  section,  Matth.  XXVIII.  19.  The  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  furnish  us  with  the  account  of  the  baptisms  occurring  subse 
quently  to  thatevent.  These  I  shall  therefore  notice  in  order.  First  how^ 
er,  I  shall  consider, 

The  prophecies  respecting  Christian  Baptism. 

As  lightly  as  some  professed  Christians  esteem  the  Old  Testament,  I  think 
they  all  must  admit  that  its  prophecies  are  true.  If  so,  it  is  not  difficult  to 
so:  lie  the  point  in  dispute.  For  it  appears  to  me,  that  it  is  as  clearly  fore- 
told of  Christ  that  he  should  baptize  by  sprinkling,  as  that  he  should  suf- 
fer and  die.  See  Isa.  LII.  13, 14,  15.  "Behold  my  servant  shall  deal  pru- 
dently, he  shall  be  exalted  and  extolled  and  be  very  high.  As  maay  were 
astonished  at  thee,  his  visage  was  so  marred  more  than  any  man,  and  hia 
form  more  than  the  sons  of  men,  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations."  This 
is  pirt  of  a  prophecy  which  is  continued  through  the  L1II  chapter,  and 
from  which  Philip  preached  Jesus  to  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch ;  the  bible  not 
being  then  divided  into  chapters  as  now.  It  can  apply  to  none  but  Christ, 
whose  visage  was  more  marred  than  any  man.  Moses  and  the  priests, 
under  the  law  sprinkled  only  the  Jews,  but  Christ  was.  to.  sprinkle  many- 
nations. 

I  would  next  observe  that  this  prophecy,  is  throughout,  a  very  literalone, 
as  you  will  discover,  if  you  will  read  the  whole,  and  the  part  of  it  which 
respects  the  sprinkling  of  many  nations  is  to  be  taken  as  literally  as  any 
part.  If  it  be  objected,  that  Christ  aaptized  none  himself,  I  reply,  the  dif- 
ficulty is  removed  by  John  IV.  1,  2  "Jesus  baptized  more  disciples  than 
John,  though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not  but  his  disciples.1'* 

We  have  another  striking  prophecy  in  Ezek.  XXXVI.  25, 26.  "Then," 
says  God,  "will  1  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you  and  ye  shall  be  clean, 
from  all  your  filtlriness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you."  Let  it 
not  be  said  that  this  sprinkling  refers  to  the  influence  of  the  spirit  and  a- 
new  heart,  for  these  are  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  next  verses  as  sepa 

*  The  ordinance  administered  by  Christ's  disciples  before  his  death,  as  it 
belonged  to  the  old  dispensation  and  was  preparatory  to  the  new;  must  have 
bejp  of  the  same  import  as  the  baptism  of  John. 


12 

rato  things,  "a  new  heart  AL$0  will  I  give  you,"  and  "I  ^ill  put  my  spirit 

within  you." 

The  baptism  o/3000  in  Jerusalem. 

Lot  U9  now  trace  the  fulfilment  of  the3e  prophecies,  19  the  baptisms 
■which  took  placo  after  Christ  instituted  his  baptism.  The*  first  instance 
id  that  of  the  3000  in  Jerusalem,  Acts  II,  41.  "Then  they  that  gladly  re- 
ceived his  word  were  baptized,  and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto 
them  about,  3000  souls.  I  know  that  some  have  ventured  to  deny  that  they 
were  all  baptized  and  added  on  the  same  day.  But  if  my  system  required 
snch  direct  contradiction  of  the  word  of  God  to  support  it,  1  am  sure  I 
would  abandon  it  at  once.  I  ask  now,  what  evidence  is  there  that  these 
3000  were  immersed?  None  at  all,  but  the  very  reverse.  It  was  nine  o'clock 
whon  Peter  begftn  his  sermon,  they  were  afterwards  exhorted  with  many 
;wo*ds,  and  much  time  must  have  been  spent  in  examining  s%  many  can- 
didates;  so  that  a  very  small  part  of  the  day  remained  for  baptism.  la 
t  these  circumstance*  would  the  apostles  have  undertaken  to  immerse  250 
a  persons  each?  As  to  the  seventy  they  were  never  authorized  tobaptire,  and 
1  if  they  were  it  does  not  appear  that  they  were  present,  for,the  14th  verse 
says,  that  "Peter  stood  up  with  the  eleven?'  But  even  supposing  that  the 
70  were  present  and  assisted  them  in  the  work,  where  could  they  find  the 
water  for  so  many  to  immerse  in.  There  was  no  river  in  or  near  Jerusalem, 
and  the  brook  Kidron,  which  is  without  the  city,  is  dry  a  great  part  of  the 
year,  and  at  no  time  affords,  depth  of  water  for  immersion.  Nor  is  there 
the  slightest  intimation  that  they  went  out  of  the  city  to  a'  stream"— 
And  where  could  the  12  apostles  and  the  70  disciples  have  found  82  pla- 
ces in  Jerusalem  suitable  for  immersion?  Some  writers  have  imagined  that 
they  obtained  of  the  rulers  and  chief  Jews  the  loan  of  their  bathing 
houses.  But  can  any  one  suppose  that  the  very  men  who  had  put  Jesus  to 
death,  and  were  breathing  nothing  but  persecution  against  his  followers, 
should  come  forward  on  the  occasion  and  politely  offer  the  use  of  their 
baths?  The  supposition  is  too  extravigant  for  credulity  itself.  The  impres- 
sion made  on  every  candid  mind,  by  the  reading  of  the  passage,  is  that  the 
3000  were  baptized  on  the  spot,  and  this  could  have  been  dpne  by  tho 
twelve,  in  one  hour,  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

Wo  may  see  another  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  in  the 

Baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  household. 

He  was  a  Gentile,  and  one  of  those  many  nations  whom  Christ  should 
sprinkle.  See  Acts  X.  44, 48.  *The  Holy  Ghost,  fell  on  all  them  that 
heard  the  word.  Then  said  Peter,  can  any  man  FORBID  WATER  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized 
&c."  Here  again  I  ask,  where  is  the  evidence  that  these  persona  were  im- 
mersed ?  The  very  expression  of  Peter  precludes  that  idea,nCan  any  man 
"forbid  water  V1  What  meaning  is  therein  this  language  if  the  water  was 
not  to  be  brought  for  the  baptism?  Would  any, man  speak  of  the  forbid 
ding  of  a  pond  or  a  river  in  such  a  case?  Besides,  I  think  it  quite  evident 
from  tlie  account  tha,t  the  whole  transaction  took  place  in  the  house. 


13 

The  Baptism  in  the  Jail  of  Philippi 

This  baptism  is  recorded  in  the  XVI.  chapter  of  Acts,  and  must  appear 
to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  to  have  taken  place,  in  the  jail,  about  mid- 
night. Some  indeed  contend  that  they  went  out  to  a  river,  because  it 
is  said  in  versa  30th.  that  the  jailor  "brought  them  out,"  But  this  er- 
ror is  corrected  by  reading  the  24th.  vers?,  from  which  wo  learn  that  as 
the  Apostles  had  been  thurst  into  the  inner  prison*  they  were  only 
•'brought  out"  into  the  outer  or  main  part,  where  the  baptism  took  place. 
We  may  also  gather  from  the  27th  Terse  that  the  jailor's  house  was 
joined  to  the  prison,  and  no  doubt  communicated  with  it  by  a  door.  For 
the  jailor,  awaking  out  of  sleep,  saw  at  once  the  situation  of  the  prison; 
and  Paul,  from  the  inner  part,  could  see  that  he  was  about  to  kill  himself 
and  by  speaking  in  a  "loud  voice"  made  himself  heard.  This  destroys 
at  onco  the  hypothesis  of  the  Baptists,  who  think,  because  the  jailor 
^brought  them  into  his  house,"  verse  34,  that  the  apostles  must  have 
been  put  to  a  river;  whereas  they  only  passed  from  the  outer  prison  into 
his  house,  through  a  door.  The  supposition  that  they  went  out  to  im- 
merse is  attended  witn  the  greatest  difficulties.  It  was  about  midnight : 
and  it  would  have  been  death,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  country,  to 
have  let  the  prisoners  out  at  any  hour.  Would  the  apostles  have  encour- 
aged the  jailor  to  violate  the  laws  of  the  land,  or  to  risk  his  life,  when  if 
he  had  to  be  immersed,  his  baptism  could  have  been  delayed  a  few  days? 
Besides  the  language  and  conduct  of  Paul  and  Silas,  the  next  morning, 
prove,  if  there  was  any  sincerity  in  them,  that  they  had  not  been  out  of 
prison  bounds.  When  the  magistrates  sent  saying  "let  these  men  go," 
the  apostles  refused  sayings  "Nay  but  let  them  come  themselves  and 
fetch  us  out."  Could  such  language  be  used  without  hypocrisy  by  one, 
who  had  been  out  in  the  night  to  a  river?  All  the  circumstances  go  to 
prove  beyond  a  doubt,  that  this  baptism  took  place  iu  the  prison.* 

TVc  baptism  of  the  Eunuch. 

Ofali !  he  baptisms  occurring  after  the  Lord  Jesus  instituted  his  baptism, 
only  one  appears  to  have  been  administered  at  a  stream;  namely,  tint  of 
the  Ethiopian  eunuch.  But  the  circumstances  were  peculiar.  He  was  trav- 
elling through  a  desert  on  the  road  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza  when  Philip 
fell  in  his  company  and  preached  unto  him  Jssus.  See  Acts  VIII.  26,  27, 
He  desired  to  be  baptized,  and  coming  to  a  certain  water  (ti  hudor)  it 
was  convenient  to  obtain  some  for  that  purpose.  He  exclaimed,  "See  here 

*Itis  not  probable  that  the  jailor  kept  a  baptismal  fount  in  the  prison,  though 
some  Baptist  churches  in  the  cities  have  those  conveniences  to  immerse  in. 
This  is  giving  up  river  baptism.  The  practice  may  become  general  among  thera; 
and  the  transition  thence  to  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  easy 

I  have  lately  heard  something  said  about  monumental  testimony  in  favor  of 
immersion,  which  means  just  this — a  kind  of  trough  has  been  found  supposed 
to  h  ive  been  anciently  used  for  dipping,  But  whether  it  was  the  very  same 
used  in  the  house  ofCornelius  and  the  jail  of  Philippi  they  v/ill  not  venture 
to  say.  Query?  may  It  not  be  one  of  the  baths  of  the.,  chief  men  of  Jerusa- 
lem! 


14 

is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  he  baptized?"  He  did  not  say,  "here  is 
much  water,'1''  or  "here  is  a  river,11  for  the  stream  appears  to  have  been  too 
small  to  have  a  name.  Jerome  Sandys,*  and  others  who  travelled  that 
road,  assert  that  there  is  no  stream  in  ihose  parts  more  than  ankle  deep. 
It  was  natural  for  the  eunuch  to  go  down  out  of  his  chariot,  to  or  into  the 
brink  of  the  water,  both  outof  respect  to  the  ordinance,  and  for  the  con- 
venience of  the  administrator;  and  the  words  in  the  original  prove  nothing 
more.  But  the  construction  which  our  opponents  put  upon  the  words, 
leads  to  the  absurdity  that  both  baptizer  and  baptized  were  immersed.  For 
what  is  said  of  the  one  is  said  of  the  othe:,  "They  went  down  both  into  tl'e 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch.11  Verse  38.  And  so  in  the  next  verse 
it  is  said  of  both,  "They  were  come  up  out  of  the  water.1' 

We  may  further  observe  that  Philip  had  just  been  explaining  the  proph- 
ecy concerning  Christ,  one  clause  of  which  said,  that  He  should  sprinkle 
many  nations.  And  doubtless  tnis  very  clause  was  the  foundation  of  the 
instruction  which  tiie  eunuch  received  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  and 
which  occasioned  his  desire  to  have  that  ordinance  administered  to  him. 
How  improbable  that  in  these  circumstances  Philip  should  immerse  him. 

The  baptism  of  Saul  afterwards  called  Paul. 

We  have  an  account  of  this  interesting"  baptism  in  two  places,  fust 
in  Acts  IX.  18.  "And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  Leen 
scales,  and  he  received  sight  forthwith  and  arose  and  was  baptized.'''' — 
Next  in  Acts  XXII.  16.  Ananias  said  to  him.  And  now  why  tarriest  thou 
"arise  and  be  baptized.'"'  It  should  seem  that  Saul,  being  exhausted  by 
long  fasting,  and  the  exercises  of  his  mind  was  reclining  on  a  bed  or 
couch,  for  he  looked  up  upon  Ananias,  Acts  XXII,  13.  And  it  appears 
that  he  rose  up  and  was  baptized  on  the  spot.  This  is  strikingly  manifest 
in  the  original  Greek.  In  v.  18.  the  words  are  anastas  cbaptisthc,  standing 
up  he  was  baptized  So  in  Acts  XXII.  1G.  anastas  baptisai,  standing  up 
be  baptized;  and  it  is  fairly  implied  that  he  received  baptism  in  a  stand- 
ing posture.  Nor  is  it  at  all  probable  that  in  his  weak  bodily  state  (Acts, 
IX.  9.)  he  would  have  gone  out  to  a  stream  or  pond  to  be  immersed.  And 
now  what  evidence  do  our  Baptist  friends  bring  to  prove  that  Saul  was 
put  under  the  water?  Why  the  same  kind  which  they  produce  in  the  case 
of  Lydia.  It  is  just  this,  that  there  was  a  river  near  Damascus,  therefore 
Saul  must  have  been  immersed.  Wonderful  logic!  As  well  might  some 
future  historian  attempt  to  prove  that  Dr.  Green  of  Philadelphia  baptized 
by  immersion  because  the  river  Delaware  is  near  the  oily!! 

Change  of  Clothing. 

It  is  remarkable  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  intimation,  in  the  Scrip 
tures,  of  a  change  of  clothes  on  any  occasion  of  a  baptism.    But  this 
would  have  been°very  necessary,  both  for  decency  and  comfort  if  immer- 
sion had  been  practised.     Nor  would  a  change   ot  clothing  have   been 
too  trifling  a  circumstance  to  be   mentioned.     For   it  was  not  deemed 

*  See  Hicron.   Do  Loc.  Heb.  and  Sandys  travels. 


15 

unworthy  cf  notice  that  Stephen's  murderers  "laid  down  their  clothes.'* 
Acta  VII.  58.  And  of  Jesus  when  he  washed  his  disciples  feet,  it  is 
said  John  XIII  4,  that  he  laid  aside  his  garments,  and  in  verse  12  that 
he  took  thera  again.  Why  then  is  it  that  in  no  instance  of  baptism,  a 
single  word  is  said  about  clothes.  The  reason  is  that  they  were  bapti- 
zed in  such,a  mode  as  rendered  a  change  of  garments  unnecessary. 

The  baptism  of  the  Israelites 

We  are  informed  in  1  Cor  X.  1,  2.  that  the  Israelites  "wereall  baptized 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  But  how?  By  immersion? 
No,  for  *  They  went  into  the  midst  of  the  sea  upon  the  dry  ground."  Exod 
XIV  22.  The  ungodly  host  of  Pharoah  were  indeed  immersed,  but  it 
is  not  said  that  they  were  baptized.  "And  the  waters  returned  and  cov- 
ered the  chariots  and  the  horsemen  and  all  the  host  of  Pharaoh."  Exod. 
XIV.  26.  The  mode  in  which  the  Israelites  were  baptized  is  explained 
in  David19  sublime  and  beautiful  description  of  the  passage  of  the  Red 
Seo.  Psalms  LXXVII,  15,  17.  "The  waters  saw  thee  O  God,  the  wa- 
ters saw  thee.  They  were  afraid,  the  depths  also  were  troubled.  The 
clouds  POURED  OUT  water."  So  then  they, were  sprinkled  with  rain 
from  the  clouds  and  with  the  spray  of  the  mighty  ocean  foaming  and 
tumbling  around  then. 

How  do  ourBaptjsl  friends  evade  the  force  of  this  argument?  Why 
they  say  the  Israelites  were  baptized,  not  by  being  plunged  into  the  sea, 
nor  yet  by  water  applied  to  them,  but  by  having  the  cloud  above 
their  heads  and  a  wall  of  water  on  each  side.  A  strange  baptism  indeed, 
without  a  drop  of  water  touching  the  subjects!  If  persons  can  be  bap- 
tized raeiely  by  being  surrounded  with  water  they  might  be  Inclosed 
in  tight  vessels  and  sunk  under  water.  But  would  this  be  a  true 
baptism? 

I  shall  only  add,  that  admitting  as  our  opponents  do,  that  this  baptism 
was  a  type  or  figure  of  Christian  baptism,  I  cannot  see  how  they  refuse 
to  administer  that  ordinance  to  infante;  for  the  Israelites  were  all  bapti- 
zed, children  as  well  as  adults. 


Noah  in  the  Ark, 

Great  stress  is  sometimes  laid  upon  the  salvation  of  Noah  by  wa* 
ter,  1  Peter,  UI  20,  21.  "Eight  souls  were  saved  by  wafer.  Tlfeelike 
figure  whereurito,  baptism  doth  now  save  us  "  I  ask  was  Noah  immer* 
sed?  No.  he  rode  secure  above  the  angry  billowr,  while  the  unbelieving 
world  sunk  beneath  the  flood 

There  are  several  other  texts  which  favor  the  mode  of  baptism  by  the 
application  of  water;  such  as  1  John  V.  8,  "There  are  three  that  bear 
witness  on  eirtb,  the  spirit  and  the  water  and  the  blood,  and  these  three 
agree  in  one."  Now  we  know  that  the  spirit  is  POURED  out,  and  the 
blood  of  Christ  was  SHED,  and  as  the  whole  three  agree  in  one  it  is  natu- 
ral to  conclude  that  the  water  of  baptised  is  to  be  pcured  or  shed  doicn  — 
AgaiR,  John  III.  5.  "Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  spirit"-™* 


16 

Now  we  have  shown  that  to  bo  b»m  of  the  spirit  is  to  have  the  spirit  pour- 
ed or  shed  upon  us.  Titus  III.  5,  6;  so  to  be  born  of  water  must  be  to  have 
water  similarly  applied  to  ua.  Once  more,  Heb,  X.  22,  "Having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure 
water."  Here  the  apostle  speaks  first,  of  the  sprinkling  of  the  precious 
bloodofChristupontheconscier.ee;  and  secondly  of  the  sign  which 
corresponds  thereto;  namely,  the  outward  cleansing  of  baptismal  water 
sprinkled  upon  the  body  lam  aware  that  sbmesay  "sprinkling  is  not 
cleansing"  but  in  this  they  contradict  God,  who  says,  '-I  will  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you  and  you  shall  bo  CLEAN."    Ezekiel,  XXXVI 

The  import  of  Baptism . 


Our  Baptist  brethren  seem  to  mistake  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Instead  of  regarding  it  as  a  sign  of  the  clean- 
sing influences  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  of  his  spirit,  they  think  it  is 
intended  to  represent  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  and 
hence  they  conclude  that  it  should  be  administered  by  immersion.  But 
they  are  mistaken  in  supposing  that  dipping  the  body  in  water  is  any  true 
representation  of  Christ's  death  and  burial.  For  if  you  will  read  the  ac- 
count in  Mark,  you  will  see  that  our  saviour  was  not  buried  in  one  of  our 
American  graves  and  covered  with  earth;  but  his  body  was  carried  into 
a  Sepulchre  or  vault  hewn  out  of  solid  rock  and  entered  by  a  door* 
and  there  it  was  laid.  And  in  what  respect  does  immersion  re- 
semble such  a  burial?  What  is  the  resemblance  between  laying  a  dead 
body  in  a  little  apartment,  hewn  out  of  the  rock,  rolling  a  stone  against 
the  door,  sealing  it  solemnly  and  leaving  it  there  three  days;  I  say  what 
is  the  resemblance  between  this,  andsuddeoly  plunging  a  living  body  un- 
der water  and  lifting  it  out  again.  The  similitude  is  little  better  than  that 
'  of  the  blind  man  who  supposed  the  light  of  the  sun  waslike  the  noise  of  a 
cannon.  Paul,  that  elegant  scholar,  never  had  a  thought  of  such  a  re- 
semblance, when  he  spoke  of  being  buried  with  Christ.  Col.  II  11, 12* 
Robinson,  the  Baptist  historian,- confesses  that  this  allusion  of  the 
Apostle  to  burying  is  misapplied  by  his  brethren,  because  they  take  their 
/Ideas  of  the  matter  from  EBglish  graves.  Mr  Judson,  Baptist  missionary 
to  BurmahjSays  that  no  one  is  qualified  for  water  baptism,  until  he  has 
■'experienced  that  burial  with  Christ  ,  And  you  will  agree  with 
: those Jearaed  men  if  you  consider  that  in  the  baptism  of  which 
Paul  speaks  we  are  said  to  be  "circumcised"  as  well  as  "buried  with 
'Christ  "  (Jiead  the  whole  passage)  and  if  a  literal  burial  is  here  meant  a 
literal  circumcision  is  also  meant.*  So  in  the  parallel  passage,  Rom.  VI, 
4,  5, ,6,  we  are  said  to  be  planted  fas  trees)  to  be  crucified,  and  to  be 
dead  as  well  as  buried  with  Christ  in  .the  baptism  there  spoken  of.  The 
true  meaning  of  all  this,  is,  that  by  that  spiritual  baptism  which  was  repre- 
sented under  the  old  dispensation  by  circumcision  and  by  bantism  under 

*  The  Hermian*andStlcucians  put  a  literal  construction  on  the  expression 
""to  baptize  with  fire,"  and  hence  some  drew  persons  who  had  been  baptiziid 
through  the  fire;  others  applied  a  hot  iron  to  their  ears. 


ft 

the  new,  believers  ore  crucified  to  the  world,  die  unto  sin  and  arise  to  a 
new  life,  as  Christ  died,  was  buvicdand  rose  again,  "Wherein,"  says  the 
apostle,  "that  is  in  this  baptism  ye  are  risen  again  through  tie  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God.'"  But  this  cannot  be  said  of  water  baptism,  for  a  per- 
son might  be  sprinkled  or  dipped  a  hundred  times,  and  yet  be  destitute 
of  faith.  It  is  true  one  class  of  Baptists  affirm  that  Baptism  cleanses 
from  sin,  and  they  quote  the  words  of  Annanias  to  Saul.  Acts  XXII.  16, 
"arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash  away  thy  sins."  But  they  omit  the  im- 
portant words  which  next  follow,  "calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 
And  which  prcve  that  Saul  was  not  to  be  cleansed  by  an  outward  sign, 
but  by  faith  in  Christ.  They  lay  great  stress  on  1  Peter  III.  21,  "Bap- 
tism doth  now  save  us."  But  does  Peter  say  this  of  water  baptism?  No; 
he  guards  us  against  such  an  awful  delusion  by  adding  immediately  "Not 
the  puttingaway  the  filth  of  the  flesh  but  the  answer  of  agood  conscience" 
that  is  a  conscience  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  answers  to, 
or  corresponds  with  the  outward  sign. 

'•Wnat  good,"  it  is  asked, "can  a  little  water  do  you?"  Jn  reply,  I 
ask  what  good  ean  much  water  do  you?  A  little  bread  and  wine  is  all  that 
is,  necessary  in  thcLoixTs  supper.  And  let  us  guard  against  the  mistake 
Peter  once  made,  John  XIII.  When  Jesus  said,  "if  I  wash  thee. not 
thou  hast  no  part  with  me,"  Peter  thought  it  was  the  outward  washing 
which  was  to  afford  him  benefit,  and  hence  concluded  like  many  in  oar 
day,  that  the  more  water  the  better.  He  said  "Lord  not  my  feet  only, 
but  also  my  hands  and  my  herd."  But  Jesus  reproved  his  carnal  views 
and  said,  "He  that  is  Washed  needeth  not,  save  to  wash  his  feet  but  is 
CLEAN  EVERY  WHIT.  "> 

After  all  I  am  glad  to  know  that  some  of  onr  Baptist  brethren,  minis- 
ters, as  well  as  people  lay  as  little  stress  upon  baptism  as  we  do.  And 
while  they  aim  at  soundness  in  the  faith,  they  are  free  from  that  haughty 
sectarian  spirit,  manifested  by  others.  Far  from  uniting  with  Infidels  in 
their  attacks  upon  particular  denominations,  they  are  willing  to  co-oper- 
ate in  every  measure  for  the  advancement  of  vital  religion.  With  such 
Baptists  the  only  contest  likely  to  arise  is,  which  shall  most  promote  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  welfare  of  immortal  souls.  But  alas,  we  are  con- 
strained to  say  that  there  are  othersywho,  while  they  do  not  profess  to 
hold  that  immersion  is  essential  to  salvation,  still  give  evidence  that  they 
are  too  willing  to  countenance  that  idea.  They  make  immersion  the 
principal  subject  of  their  public  and  private  instructions.  Mankind  in 
every  age  have  been  prone  tosubstttute  the  outward  form  for  the  inward 
grace;  and  the  effect  of  such  preaching  is,  that  too  many  of  their  people 
have  an  undue  confidence  in  the  efficacy  of  immersion.  Hence  some  of  them 
speak  of  obtaining  great' light  and  deliverance  from  the  burden  of  sin  by 
passing  under  the  water.  Hence  the  indefatigable  zeal  they  exert  to  in- 
duce persons  of  other  communions  to  be  immersed,  amounting  in  some 
instances  to  a  degree  of  persecution.  Hence  too  the  utmost  soundness 
in  doctrine  and  holiness  of  life,  the  mosi  deep  repentance,  and  eminent 
faith  cannot  fit  a  man  to  communewith  them,  unless  he  has  been  under 
the  water.  They  proiess  to  hope  indeed,  that  through  their  exertions,  all 
sects  will  in  time  come  to  be  immersed.  But  what  great  benefit  will  ac- 
crue to  mankind  if  they  should  succeed?    What  great  advantage  to  com- 

3 


18 

< 

pensate  for  the  strife  and  discord  they  will  produce?  Will  men  be  made 
more  holy  by  being  re-baptized  in  another  mode?  Is  it  a  fact  that  pevsons 
who  have  been  immersed  are  more  distinguished  than  others  for  chanty, 
that  greatest  of  all  the  graces?  Are  they  more  observant  of  the  sabbath, 
more  attentive  to  family  religion  and  other  duties,  more  active  in  promo- 
ting the  advancement  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  in  the  world?  O  that 
they  would  employ  all  this  zeal  and  labor  in  winning,  souls  to  Christ  I 
know  they  try  tojustiy  therzeal  for  immersion  by  saying  that  there  is 
but  "one  baptism,"  and  that  "if  they  are  right  all  others  are  wrong."— 
But  they  might  as  well  argue  that  because  there  is  but  one  ordinance  of 
prayer  if  they  are  right  who  pray  standing,  all  who  kneel  are  wrong,  and 
have  no  prayer  at  all.  Supposing,  for  argument  sake,  that  others  have 
made  a  mistake  as  to  the  quantity  of  water,  and  the  exact  mode  of  apply 
ing  it,  can  this  be  of  such  cosequence  in  the  view  of  the  infinite  God,  as 
to  nullify  the  seal  of  his  covenant  and  set  a^ide  the  baptismal  vow?  No. 
its  well  might  Presbyterians  say,  "There  is  but  one  Lord's  supper,  and 
if  we  are  right  in  sitting  down  at  a  table  to  receive  that  ordinance,  the 
Baptists  are  wrong,  and  have  no  real  supper  because  they  do  not  sit  at 
tables.'"  Indeed  it  is  astonishing  that  men  laying  such  stress  upon  modea 
and  forms,  as  some  Baptists  do,  should  be  so  careless  about  the  admin- 
istration of  the  supper,  for  they  know  that  the  Disciples  first  partook  of 
it  at  a  table. 

If  a  priest  were  to  come  and  proclaim  among  us  that  there  is  but  one 
ordinance  of  marriage,  an-a  that  all  our  marriages  are  null  and  void,  if 
the  ceremony  has  not  been  performed  according  to  the  Romish  church; 
would  we  not  at  once  reply  to  him  that  though  we  admitted  the  validity  of  his 
marriages,  that  of  ours  couldnot  there6y  be  impaired,-  for  that  a  variation 
in  the  ceremony  can  never  set  aside  the  marriage  covenant.  So  should 
we  say  to  our  zealous  advocates  of  immersion  when  they  urge  us  to  be 
re-baptized,  on  the  pretence  that  our  baptism  is  good  for  nothing.  We 
should  tell  them  indeed  that  if  their  mode  is  the  most  showy,  ours  is  the 
most  scriptural;  but  that  even  if  we  have  made  a  small  mistake  in  the 
outward  form  it  cannot  set  aside  the  seal  of  the  great  Jehovah.  We 
should  add,  that  after  having  received  the  baptism  instituted  by  Christ, 
to  go  and  submit  to  that  of  John,  (ff+*  supposing  that  Jonn  immersed) 
is  travelling  back  from  the  Christian  toward  the  Jewish  dispensation — is 
trifling  with  the  baptismal  vow— is  pouring  contempt  on  the  seal  of  the 
God  of  Heaven.  May  the  Lord  discover  tosuch,  the  uncharitable  course 
they  are  pursuing  towards  their  brethren  of  other  denomiaations.  May 
he  impart  to  them  that  wisdom  which  is  peaceable  as  well  as  pure.  And 
may  he  vouchsafe  to  us  all,  the  baptism  of  his  holy  spirit  -and  then  how- 
ever separated  by  ordinances  here,  we  shall  all  sit  down  to  one  marring? 
supper  in  the  kingdom  of  God.    AMEN. 


19 


LETTEP.  Hi, 

> 

On  the  subject*  of  Baptism. 

Christian  Brethren. 

It  has  often  been  observed  in  religious  ccntro*  ' 
Versies  that  men  do  not  usually  resort  to   misrepresentation    and  abuse, 
Until  reason  and  scripture  have  failed  thorn.  And  I  do  not  doubt  that  it  is  a  ' 
grief  to  many  pious  Baptists,  that  some  of  their  brethren  betray  the  weak- 
ness of  their  cause  by   the  use  of  those  unhallowed  weapons.     Indeed, 
it  is  te  be  regie!  ted  by  all, that  there  should  be  any,  who    as  if  they  were 
conscious  of  tii-.' weakness  of  their  system,  should  try   to  support  it  by 
bitter    words — charging    their    Pedo-baptist  brethren   as,  not  sincere  in  ' 
their  belief — branding  them  with  Popery,  and  pour^pg^a  torrent  of  pro-  • 
fane  ridicule  upon   what  they   call  infant  sprinkling.     Whilst  we  bear 
with  meekness  the  revilings  of  such  men,  let  us  reply  to  them  only  by 
arguments  drawn  from  the  word  of  God.     This  I  hope  I  shall  be  enabled 
to  do.     In  the  preceding  letters,  I  briefly  stated  to  you  my  views  of  the 
mode  of  baptism'.     In  this  and  the  following  I  shall  in  a  few  words  dis 
cuss  the  quest  ion.  Who  are  proper  subjects  of  that  ordinance? 

And  here  let  me  observe  that  our  church  holds  as  firmly  to  "believer's 
baptism"  as  our  opponents  do;  that  is  we  maintain  that  believing  adults 
ure  to  receive  Christian  baptism  if  they  have  not  been  subjects  of  that 
ordinance  before.     And  yet  our  baptist  friends  appear  to  think  that  such 
baptisms  are  inconsistent  with  our  system.  They  quote  such  passages  as 
ActsXVIII.  8,  "many  of  the   Corrinthians   hearing,   believed,  and  were 
baptized."     Here,  say  they,  believers  were. baptized,  therefore  the   Co- 
rinthians must  have  been  Baptists.     They  do  not  consider  thai  by  fllis 
mode  of  reasoning  they  would    conclude  our  two  congregations  to  be"- 
Baptists  also;  for  it  is  well   known  that  many   adults  have  been  lately 
baptized  in  our  churches.     So  then  the   only  question  to  be  discussed  at 
present  is,  Whether  a  believer  having  been   baptized  himself  may  have 
his  children  admitted  to  (hat  Ordinance,.     I  affirm  that  he  may;    and  in 
support  of  my  views  shall  claim  the  liberty  of  referring  you  to  any  part  of 
Ihe  scriptures  which  may  have  n  bearing  on  the  subject,  for  it  is  all   the' 
work  of  inspired  penmen.     '-ALL  SCRIPTUPE"  says  Paul,  "is  given' 
by  inspiration  of  Cod,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine.^     I    am  sure  my 
brethren,  you  will  believe  an  inspired  apostle  in  preference  to  those  who 
tell  you.  that  the  old  Testament  is  done  away  and  so  is  not  profitable  for 
doctrine.      That  part  of  the  word  of  God  is  still  in  force ;ar.d  such  ofitg 
institutions  as  have  not  been  set  aside  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  are  ev 
idently  binding  on  us  at  this  very  moment.     After  these  remarks  I  pro 
eeed  to  show. 

1  That  infant3  teen  once,  by  ihe  appointment  of  Gcd,  adviitted  with, 
in  the  pah  of  his  church,  and  received  the  existing  seal  of  his  cove 
nant. 


20 

2  That  in fants^hace  never  been1 excluded  by  the  authority' of  God ',  and 
consequently  are  still  entitled  to  membership. 

In  support  of  my  firsfproposition,  I  observe,  that 

God  had  a  church  under  the  Old  Dispensation. 

This  is'almost  too  evident  to  require  proof,  and  yet  some  of  the  Bap 
list  brethren,  in  maintaining  their  system,  have  been  driven  to  deny  that 
God  had  even  a  church  on  earth  until  the  day  ofPenticost,  or  until  the  time 
of  John  the  Baptist!  And  was  the  God  of  heaven  then  without  a  church  for 
the  first  four  thousand  years  of  the  world's  existence  ?  Did  he  call  out  a  cho- 
aen  people  and  separate  them  to  himself  from, all  the  nations  of  the 
earth?  Did  he  often  interpose  for  tbem  by  the  most  astonishing  mira- 
cles? Did  he  raise  up  among  them  a  succession  of  distinguished  proph- 
ets and  holy  men.  through  whomhejnade  known  his  will?  And  did  he 
appoint  for  them  the  most  solemn  ordinances,  directing  their  faith  to  the 
blood  of  a  saviour?  And  notwithstanding  all  this,  was  there  no  church 
established  for  the^lqry  of  his  name?  But  this  sentiment  so  dishonor- 
able to  Godj  is  contradicted  by  the  New  Testament.  In  Acts  Vfl.  38, 
Stephen  says,  "This  is  lie  (Moses)  that  was  with  the  CHURCH  IN  THE 
WILDERNESS,  with  the  ANGEL  that,  spake  to  him  in  the  mount  Si- 
nai, and  with  our  fathers,  who  received  the  LIVELY  ORACLES  to  give 
onto  us."*  See  also  Psalms  XXII.  22  *'In  the  midst  of  the  congregation 
will  I  praise  thee."  What  David  here  calls  a  congregation,  the  writer 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  calls  a  church;  for  he  quotes  him  as  saying 
'•in  the  midst  of  the  CHURCH,  will  I  sing  praise  unto  thee,"  Heb.  II. 
12,  Granting  then,  that  there  was  a  churchy  under  the  old  dispensation, 
the  next  question  is, 

How  were  persons  admitted  into  that  church? 

How  would  a  heathen  who  wished  to  renounce  Idolatry,  embrace 
the  true  religion,  and  enter  the  church  of  God;  how  I  say,  would  such  an 
one  be  admitted;  and  what  religious  rites  would  he  undergo?  The  answer 
to  this  question  is  found  in  Exod.  XII.  48,  49.  He  must  be  circumcised, 
and  then  he  would  be  allowed  to  eat  the  Passover,  which  held  about  the 
same  place  in  the  ancient  church,  as  the  Lord's  supper  with  us.  But  were 
his  children  to  be  left  out  and  counted  st'll  as  heathens?  No;  the  same 

Eassagesays,  "Let  all  his  males  be  circumcised  and  then  let  him  come  and 
eep  the  Passover."  Thus  we  see  that  when  parents  were  admitted  into 
the  church,  their  children  were  also  admitted,  and  received  the  same  re- 
ligious rite  with  themselves. 

*  The  word  ecclefia  here  translated  church,  is  the  same  which  is  used 
Acts  II  47  "and  the  Lord  added  unto  the  church  (te  ecclesia)  daily  such  3S 
should  be  saved.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  church  in  the  wilderness 
was  a  church  of  God,  aid  had  the  best  preacher  the  world  ever  saw,  viz,  the 
Lord  Jesus  himself,  who  appeared  and  spake  to  them  m  the  form  of  an  angel. 
Was  that  a  "tumultuous  assembly"  in  which  Christ  was  losing  praises'?  It 
might  not  have  been  a  church  sn  which  females  were  authorised,  to  speak  and- 
to  rale.  I.  Cor.  XtV.  34,  35.  Still  however  it  was  a  church  of  God. 


21 

But  what  was  the  origin  and  design  of  crcumcision?  It  was  net  a  part 
of  the  law  given  by  Moses;  but  w?#  instituted  as  the  seal  of  a  remarkable 
covenant  which  God  made  with  his  church  through  Abraham  Of  this  Cove- 
nant we  hav«  an  account  in  two  places;  first  in  Gen.  XII.  1.  3,  when  God 
first  called  Abraham  and  promised  the  blessing  of  a  Saviour.  Then  in  Gen^ 
XVII,  1. 14,  thirty  years  after,  when  God  confirmed  his  covenant  with  the 
addition  of  some  particulars,  and  appointed  circumcision  as  its  seal.  Af- 
ter an  attentive  perusal  of  those  passages  you  will  be  prepared  for  the  fol- 
lowing remarks. 

1st.  It  included  children  as  well  as  pirents.  "I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee 
and  to  thy  seed  after  thee"  XVII,  7. 

2d.  It  was  to  be  an  everlasting  covenant  XVII.  7.  It  could  not  be  abol- 
ished with  the  law  of  Moses,  from  which  it  was  separate  and  distinct.  Gal. 
Ill  17.  "This  I  say  that  the  covenant  which  was  confirmed  before  of  G  1 
in  Christ,  the  law  which  was  430  years  after  cannot  disannul  that  i*  should 
make  the  promise  of  none  effect." 

3  Circumcision  was  the  first  seal  of  this  covenant  XVII  11.  "It  shall 
be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you."  Rom.  IV  11.  The 
covenant  however  was  not  dependent,  on  circumcision  for  its  existence; 
for  it  was  made  with  Abraham  30  years  before  that  seal  was  appointed, 
and  consequently  the  abolition  of  circumcision  far  from  affecting  it,  only 
left  room  to  substitute  a  less  painful  and  oppressive  rite  as  its  seal. 

The  import  of  circumcision. 

Let  us  now  consider  that  rite,  by  which  infants  of  eight  days  old  were 
recognized  as  members  of  the  visible  church,  and  see  if  it  did  not  hold  as 
high  a  place  as  baptism  now  does. 

1.  Circumcision  bound  those  who  were  subjects  of  it,  to  keep  the  whole 
law.  Gal.  V.  3  "I  testify  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a 
debtor  to  do  the  whole  law."  And  does  baptism  require  more  of  us? 

2.  Circumcision  was  a  sign  of  holiness  of  heart.  Rom.  II.  29,  "Circum- 
cision is  that  of  the  heart."  Deut.  XXX.  6.  "And  the  Lord  thy  God 
shall  circumcise  thy  heart  and  the  heart  of  thy  seedy  All  agree  that  bap- 
tism is  a  sign  of  regeneration. 

3.  Circumcision  being  a  bloody  rite,  pointed  to  the  blood  of  Christ.  It 
was  a  seal  of  that  covenant  which  promised  the  blessings  of  a  Saviour,  - 
Baptism  directs  our  view  to  the  same  blood  of  sprinkling.  Heb.  X,  22,. 
"Having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water  " 

4.  Circumcision  was  the  "seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith."  So  says 
Paul,  Rom.  IV,  11.  The  same  is  true  of  baptism.  Mark  XVI.  10,:  "He 
that  bdieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved." 

Such  was  the  nature  of  the  ordinance  administered  to  infanta  of- eight 
days  old;  and  you  cannot  but  perceive  that  if  the  opponents  of  infant  bap- 
tism, had  lived  under  the  Old  Dispensation,  with  their  present  views,  they 
would  have  brought  objections  against  all  the  regulations  respectingthem 
which  were  established  by  God  himself. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that  circumcision  under,  the  Old 
-Dispensation  and  baptism  under  the  New,  hold   pretty  much  the  same- 


22 

place,  and  signified  the  same' things,  and  this  is  plainly  implied  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Apostle,  in  Col.  II  11, 12,  #ierc  he  brings  them  together,  and 
reoresents  the  change  effected  by  regeneration  as  expressed  by  both.  Be- 
sides; the  covenant,  aswehave  shown,  is  still  in  existence.  If  so,  it  must 
now  have  a  seal.  This  is  certain  if  God  meanthis  covenant  to  continue  in 
force.  But  circumcision  has  been  abolished,  so  that  if  it  now  have  any  seal, 
that  seal  must  be  baptism.  If  baptism  be  now  the  seal  of  the  covenant, 
then  it  holds  the  place  which  circumcision  once  did.  If  any  object  to  this 
account,  because  only  males  were  circumcised,  but  both  sexes  are  bapti- 
zed, I  answer  that  females,  under  the  former  dispensation,  were  admitted 
into  the  church  by  Sacrifice,  or  by  virtue  of  the  admission  of  the  males. 
For  we  gather  from  thelaw,(ExodXIL)  that  if  the  males  were  circumcised, 
the  females  were  admitted  at  once  to  the  passover.  But  the  coming  of 
Christ,  instead  of  abolishing  the  privileges  of  the  male  children,  as  Bap- 
tists say  it  has  done,  has  only  ENLARGED  that  privilege,  by  extending 
the  seal  to  the  other  sex,  so  that  the  distinction  made  by  circumcision  i.i 
get  aside  in  baptism.  Gal.  III.  27,  28,  "For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ  There  is  neither  Greek  nor 
Jew,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  MALE  nor  EEMALE  ' 
for  ye  are  all  ONE  in  Christ  Jesus." 

Now  there  are  some  will  tell  you,  that  "circumcision  was  only  a  mark 
or  badge  of  Jewish  descent.1'  But  how  opposite  is  this  to  truth;  for  that 
ordinance  was  by  no  means  confined  to  jews  Strangers  of  any  nation 
who  embraced  the  true  religion,  were  admitted  to  circumcision.  Exod. 
XII, 48,  49.  "One  law  shall  be  to  him  that  is  home-born,  and  unto  the 
stranger."  And  if  half  the  world  had  embraced  the  religion  of  Jehovah, 
they  would  have  beeto  circumcised.  Some  too,  will  tell  yon,  that  circum- 
cision was  a  sign  of  temporal  biasings  only,  particularly  of  a  right  to  the 
land  of  Canaan.  But  was  Ishmael  and  Abraham's  servants  to  possess  that 
land?  Yet  they  were  all  required  to  be  circumcised.  Gen.  XVII.  23.  Be- 
sides: look  at  the  promise,  (V.  7)  "I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  unto  thy 
seed  after  inez''  Does  not  this  include  more  thin  the  riches  and  honors  of  this. 
world?  Others  again  will  say  that  the  covenant  only  hud  a  reference  to 
Christ,  as  the  seed  of  AbraLim.  And  it  is  true  it  had  an  important  refer- 
ence to  him,  as  the  sotiTce  of  salvation,  but  it  included  all  Abraham's  spir- 
itual seec",  whether  Gentiles  or  Jews  as  being  united  l<  Christ  the  head. 
Seu  til.!.  III.  29.  "If  ye  are  Christ's  ye  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  prdnrisfc.*'  And  the  seal  of  that  covenant  was  applied  to 
iafants  of  eight  days  oM. 

*  It  is  objected  by  sr>r?c,  that  the  OU  Testament  church  was  only  a  typical 

one.  Pat  Lad  they  a  typical  saviour,  and- a  typical  <ps:  ifi    For  Paul  says, 

raspel  was  preset,  ed  onto  them.  lieb.  IV.  2.  But  grantisg  it  to  have  been 

iitircti,  it  follows  that  the  type  must  be  fulfilled  in  the  gospel  church, 

apts  be  admitted.    Another  objection  is,  that  the  ancient  church 

\;      h  ot  God,  because  there  were  so  many  corrupt 

■■'.:.z  to  it.  J  answer  that  at  the  very  worst  time,  there  were 

•;aien  God.  Eom.  XI.  4,  and  1  Kin.  XIX.  18.    Besides 

iith'i:  .  has  any  weight,  it  will  go  to  destroy  the  Christian  church,  tor 

oere  i*rc  been  times  of  most  awful  corruption  in  that,  s s  ./ell  as  in  the  Jew- 

iskekurch.    This  however,  was  not  the  lault  of  the  constitution  which  Get 


23 

Having  thri3  proved,  that  infants  were  once  by  the  appointment  ofGed 
admitted  within  the  pale  of  his  church,  I  proceed  to  fbow 

II.  That  they  have  never  been  excluded  by  the  authority  of  Christ,  or 
his  apostles,  and  consequently  still  have  the  right  of  membership* 

That  they  have  the  same  right  as  formerly,  is  evident,  because  the 
church  is  essentially  the  same  now,  that  it  wasunder  the  Old  Dispensation. 
The  rites  and  ceremonies  peculiar  to  the  Jewish  dispensation  have  in- 
deed been  set  aside;  but  membership  in  the  church,  which  was  constitu- 
ted long  before,  in  the  time  of  the  Patriarcns,  has  been  left  untouched, 
and  consequently  the  same  members  are  to  be  admitted  as  formerly. 

Near  to  the  apostolic  age,  arose  a  sect  who  held  that  the  church  under 
the  Old  Dispensation  was  the  church  of  an  inferior  God;  that  the  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament,  having  been  inspired  by  this  inferior  deity,  were  of 
?io  authority  whatever;  and  that  thejJewish  dispensation  was  a  earned  one. 
But  such  impious  sentiments  cannot  be  rco  mucl  discountenanced.  The 
Patriarchal  and  Jewish  churches  were  essentially  the  same  with  the  Chris- 
tian; the  church  of  the  same  God.  They  had  the  same  gospel  preached  to 
them.  Gal.  Ill,  3,  "Preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham.''  And 
Heb.  IV  2,  "Unto  us  was  the  gospel  preached,  as  well  as  unto  them."— 
They  looked  by  fahh  to  the  same  Saviour,  and  their  ordinances  pointed 
to  the  same  blood  of  atonement. 

The  good  Olive  tree. 

Let  us  hear  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  on  this  subject  in  the  XI  chap- 
ter to  the  Romans,  where  he  compares  the  church  of  the  Old  Dispensation 
.to  a  good  Olive  tree.  The  Jews,  who  were  the  natural  branches,  were  bro-  . 
ken  off,  and  the  Gentiles  were  grafted  into  the  same  stock,  verses  17,  18, 
19,  "And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou  being  a  wild. 
Olive  tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,  and  with  them  partakes!  of  the  root 
and  fatness  of  the  Olive  tree,  boast  not  against  the  branches,  but  if  thou 
boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee.  Thou  wilt  say  thou 
the  branches  were  broken  off  that  £  might  be  grajfed  in.  Verse  21,  "If 
God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  *ake  heed  lest  he  spare  not  thee." 
And  when  the  Jews  shall  be  converted  to  God  into  what  church  willf  they 
be  admitted?  According  to  the  Apostle,  into  their  own  church,  from 
which  they  were  cast  out  for  their  unbelief.  Verses  23.  24,  "And  they  al- 
80  if  they  abide  not  in  unbelief  shall  be  grafted  in,  for  God  is  able  tograf 
.them  in  again.  For  if  thou  wert  cutout  of  the  Olive  tree  which  is  wild  by 
nature,  and  wen  grafted  contrary  to  nature  into  a  GOOD  Olive  tree,  ho v/ 
much  more  sh^Jl  Uiesc,  which  be  the  natural  branches  be  grafted  into 

gave  his  church,  for  holiness  Was  a3  much  required  of  persons  circumcised  ss 
it  is  now  of  persons  baptized. 

*  Insa}icg  that  infants  aro  entitled  to  membership  in  the  church,  we  do 
not  mean  that  they  are  to  enjoy  any  privileges  of  which  they  are  incapable; 
but  that  they  have  a  r;gl.t  to  the  seal  of  membership,  and  that  they  should  be 
placed  in  the  nursery  of  the  church  to  be  trained  up  for  God,  and  wlieu  thev 
come  to  years  of  discretion,  it*  they  manifest  faith  and  repentance,  tl.cy  ail>' 
.to  be  admitted  to  all  the  distinguishing  privileges  of  Christ's  family. 


•21 

THEIR  OWN  Olive  tree."  It  follows  then,  that  if  there  was  no  church 
under  the  Old  Dispensation,  there  is  none  at  this  day. 

In  the  XXI  chapter  of  Matth .  our  Saviour  represents  the  Jewish  church 
under  the  similitude  of  a  vineyard.  See  verses  33 — 43.  Our  Lord  decla- 
red in  explanation  of  the  parable(v.43)  that  "the  kingdom  of  God  should 
he  taken  from  the  Jews,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits 
thereof."  The  expression  kingdom  of  God,  cannot  here  signify  either  the 
kingdom  of  grace  or  of glory,  neither  of  which  the  unbelieving  Jews  pos- 
sessed. It  must  therefore  mean  the  church,  which  is  his  visible  kingdom 
;.".  the  world,  and  the  passage  shows  that  we  are  introduced  into  the  same 
vineyard,  from  which  the  Jews  were  thrust  out;  and  are  admitted  into  the 
same  church,  from  which  they  were  ejected. 

But  a  perusal  of  the  II  chapter  to  the  Ephesians,  will  decide  this  point. 
They  had  bee^  heathens,  (vs.  11,  12)  But  having  been  now 
brought  into  the  church  of  God,  they  were  "fellow  citizens  of  the  saints, 
and  of  the  household  of  God,  and  were  built  on  the  foundation  of  the 
Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone." 
vs.  19,  20,  not  of  the  Apostles  only  but  of  the  Apostles  and  PROPHETS. 
Could  ?ny  thing  be  more  clear  as  to  the  sameness  of  the  Jewish*  and 
Christian  churches.*  See  also  v.  14. 

We  have  no  right  to  exclude  infants. 

This  point  b sing  proved,  it  follows,  that  infants  having  been  original- 
ly admitted  into  the  visible  church,  cannot  now  be  excluded  without  Di- 
vine authority  for  that  purpose.  But  where  in  all  the  Scriptures,  can  we 
find  such  authority.  Where,  in  his  word,  does  the  great  Jehovah,  tell  us 
that  though  he  once  admitted  infants  to  his  chnrch,  to  be  trained  up  in 
hisnurture  and  admonition,  they  shall  now  be  admitted  no  more?  Where 
I  say  do  we  find  the  least  shadow  of  an  authority  for  excluding  them?— 
There  is  none  either  in  the  Old  or  New  Testament.  And  what  are  we  that 
"swe  should  assume  to  ourselves  the  right  of  dictating,  as  to  who  should, 
or  who  should  not,  receive  the  seal  of  his  covenant?  Who  are  we,  that  we 
should  banish  from  the  visible  church  those  whom  the  God  Of  heaven  has 
admitted  into  it,  on  whom  he  ha?  set  his  seal,  for  whom  Jesus  has  shed  his 
•  blood : — should  cast  them  out,  because  according  to  our  views,  they  ought 
.never  to  have  beenieceived;  because  we  happen  to  think  that  it  can  do  no 
good  to  baptize  them?  What  arrogance  of  senseless  dust  and  ashes!  Nei- 
ther the  Lord  Jesus  nor  his  apostles,  ever  excluded  little  children,  but  did 
the  very  reverse,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show. 

I  am  awave  that  some  have  urged,  that  the  law  by  which  infants  were 
admitted  to'  ie  o'iurcb,  is  so  old  as  to  be  out  of  date.  Bm  is  the  author- 
ity of  the  lawi  Oi  <iod  to  cease  when  they  become  old?  Is  it  right  for  a 
rir.an  now  to  marry  his  own  sister,  because  the  law  prohibiting  such  mar 


*  The  objection  that  infaut  membership  rests  on  the  same  foundatior  with 
tythes,  &c.  displays  great  ignorance.  For  iniant  membership  was  estaulish- 
ed  by  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  400  years  before  the  political  con- 
stitution which  Moses -gave  the  Jews,  and  was  entirely  a  distinct  thing,  as  the 
Apostle^arguet  in-Gal.  III.  17. 


25 

• 

rir..  -  is  3,500  years  old?  And  will  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament 
Ix-  -<  I  aside  when  it  becomes  old?  No  brethren  The  laws  of  God  ar» 
not  in  the  least  degree  impaired  by  their  cntiqmfy.  It  requires  the  Bann* 
authority  to  set  them  aside  that  fust  enacted  them.  Such  as  have  not 
been  repealed  by  the  Lord  himself,  must  continue  in  forco  while  the  churck 
«xis!s.  And  here  we  may  at  once  perceive  the  reason  why  it  was  not  ne- 
cessary that  the  Lord  Jesusshould  give  the  Apostles  an  express  comman i 
to  baptize  infants.  For  as  he  made  no  change  as  to  membership  of  the 
ehurch,  they  perfectly  understood  that  no  change  in  that  respect  was  to  bx» 
made  by  them.  The  church  being  the  same  under  the  netr  dispensation  as 
under  the  old,  and  baptism  being  BHbstilut3d  for  circumcision  as  the  seal 
of  the  covenant,  it  followed  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  infants  being  still 
members  of  the  church,  were  to  be  baptized.  And  an  express  command 
from  our  Saviour  to  that  eGect,  would  have  been  as  needless  as  an  ex- 
press command  to  admit  females  to  the  LoTd^s  table.  Neither  the  one  nor 
the  other  was  at  ali  necessary,  for  those  who  being  Jews  as  the  Apostles 
were,  knew  well,  of  whom  the  visible  church  wa6  composed  And  hence 
when  the  Apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem  in  full  assembly,  decided  that 
the  seal  of  circumcision  was  set  aside,  (Acta  XV.  23 — 2U)  instead  of  ma- 
king any  change  in  respect  of  infant  membership,  they  left  it  untouched, 
%  striking  proof  that  they  intended  it  to  remain. 

And  yet  we  hear  persons  say  "show  us  in  the  New  Testament  an  ex- 
press command  to  baptize  infants.  No  matter  what  the  Old  Testameilt 
6ays  about  infant  membership  if  we  cannot  find  a  Thus  faith  the  Lordfot 
it  in  the  New,  they  must  be  excluded.  The  folly  of  this  reasoning  is  easi- 
ly exposed.  Let  us  suppose  that  a  lawyer,  in  endeavoring  to  deprive  chil- 
dren of  the  right  of  inheritance,  should  present  the  following  argument  to 
the  court .  "It  is  true  that  children  were  once  permitted  by  the  laws  of  this 
commonwealth,  to  inherit  the  estates  of  their  pv.enls.  But  those  laws 
were  enacted  many  years  since  Show  us  that  such  laws  were  passed  du- 
ring the  Ust  session  of  the  legislature.  If  there  is  no  law  in  so  many  words 
among  the  acts  of  the  last  session,  children  are  to  be  excluded,  and  are 
no  more  to  inherit  from  their  parents  "  Could  any  thing  be  more  perfect-. 
Iy'ridiculous  than  such  an  argument?  Yet  it  is  as  good  as  the  argument  of 
those  who  plead  for  the  exclusion  of  children  from  the  church,  because 
there  is  no  command  in  so  many  words,  in  the  New  Testament  to  baptiza 
them. 

Besides;  this  kind  of  reasoning  will  exclude. females  from  the  Lord's 
supper.  There  is  no  express  command,  in  all  the  New  Testamert,  to  ad- 
mit females  to  that  ordinance.  You  may  search  from  the  beginning  totb» 
end  and  you  will  find  none.*  Their  right  to  the  communion  is  undoubted, 
but  how  do  we  prove  it.  We  show  that  by  the  command  of  God  they  were 
formerly  admitted  to  the  Passover,  and  that  the  church  of  God  is  ever  «► 

*  Some  Baptist  writers  think  that  they  can  fiod  an  "explicit  warrant"  tot 
female  communion  in  1  Cor.  XI.  28.  "Let  a  man  examine  himself."  For  the 
Greek  word  anthropog,  say  they,  being  of  the  common  gender,  denotes  bofti 
men  and  women.  But  Mr.  Edwards  has  produced  nineteen  instance*  io 
which  anthropos  denotes  the  male,  in  distinction  from  the  female  sex,  as 
WarkX.  7,  "For  this  cause  shall  a  man  [anthropos]  leave  father  and  miotbe* 
sn4  cleave  onto  bit  WIFE,"  so  that  their  explicit  warrant  vajoi*bet  into  air; 

4 


*nfially  the  same;  and  as  the  Lord's  supper  no*  holds  the  place  in  thfr 
church  which  the  Passover  did,  no  one  has  a  right  to  exclude  them  from 
that  ordinance.  And  we  have  precisely  the  same  kind  of  proof  for  infant 
baptism.  9othat  if  a  person  should  rise  up  and  debar  all  females  from  tho 
Lord's  table,  because  no  express  command  can  be  found  in  the  New  Tes>- 
tament  for  their  admission,  he  would  stand  just  on  as  good  ground  as 
thwc  vrlio,  for  the  same  reason  exclude,  children  from  the  visible  church. 


1ETTSE  IV, 

Infant  Baptism  Continued. 

The  arguments  from  the  New  Testament 

Christian  Brethren  : 

We  would  not  have  you  suppose  that  there  is  no  evidence  for  infaR* 
baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  for  there  is  enough;  as  much  as  might 
be  expected.  But  even  if  there  were  none,  that  circumstance  would  not 
authorize  us  to  exclude  infants  from  the  seal  of  membership.  For  I  hava 
fhown  in  my  last  letter  that  God  once  admitted  them  to  his  visible churcri, 
and  that  their  right  of  membership  has  never  been  since  taken  away;  and 
©f  course  it  remains  the  same  under  the  new  asunder  the  «.ld  dispensation. 
But  if  infants  now  have  the  right  of  raembersnip  they  must  be  baptized.  - 
But  let  us  proceed  to  the  New  Testament,  and  see  if  it  doei  not  fur* 
•Bish  evidence  of  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism. 

Little  children  belong  to  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

I  shall  first  refer  you  to  Mark  X.  13—16,  "And  THEY  BROUGHT 
young  children  to  him  that  he  should  touch  them,  and  his  disciples 
rebuked  those  that  brought  them.  But  wh-:n  Jesus  saw  it  he  was  mu<5h 
displeased,  and  said,  suffer  the  LITTLE  CHILDREN  to  come  unto  me 
and  forbid  them  not,  for  OF  SUCH  is  the  kingdom  of  God.'' 

Hore  let  me  remark,  that  our  Saviour  speaks  of  children  too  young  to 
-come  to  him  of  themselves,  for  these  were  brought  to  him.  And  "Jesus 
took  them  up  in  his  arms"  (verse  10)  And  the  parents  must  have  been  be- 
Jfeversin  Christ,  ^r  they  would  not  have  brought  their  children  to  him  for 
%\&  blessing. 

"But  why,"  it  is  asked,  "is  it  not  said  that  Christ  baptized  them."  I  an- 
swer for  two  good  reasons.  Firs!,  because  Christ  never  baptized  any  him- 
self, either  adults  or  infants.  Secondly,  because  Christ  had  not  yet  insti- 
tuted his  baptism.  The  Gospel  dispensation  was  not  fully  opened  until  af- 


9i 

ter  his  death.  It  was  not  till  after  his  resurrection  from  the  dead  vhrts 
be  gave  the  command  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Ho# 
ly  Ghos*.  Until  the  death  of  Christ  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  cov- 
enant, and  these  children  had  doubtless  received  that  seal  and  had  beett 
thus  dedicated  to  God  by  their  parents. — These  are  ample  reasons  why  it 
was  not  said  that  Christ  baptized  them.* 

Observe  the  action  of  our  Lord  on  this  occasion,  "he  put  his  hands  on 
them  and  blessed  them."  You  often  hear  the  qHesliort  "what  good  can  it  do 
to  bring  infants  to  Christ?"  The  Lord  Jesus  as  if  to  stop  all  cavilling  on 
the  subject,  pronounces  his  Messing  upon  them.  And  would  he  have  bles- 
sed those  who  were  incapable  of  a  blessing? 

Observe  too,  the  declaration  he  makes  respecting  them.  "Suffer  them 
to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not."  Thedisciples  had  opposed  the  pa- 
rents when  bringing  l  heir  children  to  him.  But  we  are  told  Jesus  was  dii- 
pleased,  much  displeased  with  them  for  such  conduct;  as  he  is,  doubtless, 
with  ail  those  who  would  forbid  pious  parents  to  present  their  chiloren  to 
.  him. 

.  "Suffer  them  to  come  unto  me"  says  Christ  "for  OF  SUCH  is  the 
KINGDOM  OF  GOD."  He  does  nc  t  say  for  adults  like  untasuch  be'ong 
to  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  it  would  bestrange  if  our  Saviour  had  said 
svfer  little  children  to  come  to  me,  for  that  adults  belong  to  the  kingdom. 
O'ir  Saviour  surely  did  not  reason  in  such  a  way.  But  1  e  says,  OF 
SUCH  is  the  kingdom,  of  God.  The  expression  kingdom  of  Gcdy  must 
here  signify  either  the  kingdom  of  glrry,or  the  visible  church.  If  it  mean 
the  kingdom  of  glory,  then  it  follows  that  infants  are  admitted  into  heav- 
en, and  if  so,  why  should  we  exclude  them  from  the  church  on  earth?— 
Slnll  we  attempt  to  be  more  pure  than  God?  If  he  receives  them  into  his 
heaven  y  kingdom,  shill  we  reject  them?  ZJut  if  the  expression  mean  th« 
visible  church,  then  it  proves  at  once,  that  infants  are  a  part  of  that  church; 
the  kingdom  of  God  Leina  composed  in  part  at  least  OF  SUCH,  that  is 
eflittlo  children.  But  ifuHy  are  entitled  to  membership,  it  is  evident  that 
they  are  proper  subjecis  of  baptism.! 

The  promise  to  you  and  your  children..  Acts  H.  33,  30. 

If  the  Apostles  had  intended  to  abolish  the  promise  of  the  covenant, 
made  to  believers  and  their  children  the  day  ot  Pentecost   would   have 
been  the  very  time  to  carry  into  effect  tneir  purpose;  for  the  gospel  dis 
pensation  was  then  folly  opened.  But  did  they  do  so'  No,  on  the  contra- 
ry Pe*er  spoke  to  the  Jews  in  this  language,  Acts  II  3S,  39,  "Repent  ani 

*  1  am  clearly  of  opinion  that  the  Apostles  and  120  Disciples  never  recei- 
ved Christian  baptism  at  ail;  and  for  this  reason.  They  were  admitted  into 
the  church  of  God  by  circumcision.  And  when  the  unbelieving  part  of  the 
Jews,  were  by  a  Judicial  stroke,  cast  out  of  the  church,  they  remained  in  it 
and  cons  nmed  the  church  to  which  the  3000  were  added  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  C.ri.-stian  baptism  having  been  instituted  after  the  death  of  Christ 
and  consequently  after  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  cut  off;  to  have  adminis- 
tered that  ordinance  to  the  disciples  would  have  implied  that  they  bad  al»« 
teen  cast  out  of  the  church. 

i  Luke  IX.  47,  48,  is  also  a  strong  proofthat  infanta  are  fitsubjects  of  baptiasa 


28 

fee  baptized  every  oae  of  you  fur  ihe  remission  of  sins  and  ye  shall  r©cei?a 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  YOUR 
CHILDREN."  The  promise  here  mentioned,  does  not  refer  to  the  pn  ph« 
ecy  of  Joel,  far  back  in  the  chapter,  for  that  was  a  promise  of  miraculous 
gifts,  and  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  the  whole  3000  were  to  receive  those 

fifes.  At  any  rate  it  was  a  promise  urged  by  Peter  as  a  reason  why  tho 
.  ews  and  their  children  should  be  baptized.  "Repent"  says  he  "and  bo 
baptized  every  one  of  you" — "for  tl>e  promise  is  u  n  to  you  and  your  chi  Idre  n ." 

But  if  we  refer  to  Gal.  HI.  29,  when  the  Apostle  says  "If  ye  are  Christ'd 
ye  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise;"  if  we  con- 
sider that  they  were  Jews  to  whom  Peter  spake;  that  they  laid  peculiar 
♦tress  upon  the  promise  of  the  covenant  "I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee;1'  that  this  promise  was  always  in  their  minds  and  oa 
ihe  r  tongues;  we  may  at  once  perceive  what  they  would  understand  by 
"THE  PROMISE."  They  would  naturally  refer  to  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant. From  the  time  of  Abraham  they  had  been  admitted  into  the  church 
together  with  their  children,  and  they  were  too  tenacious  on  this  point  tot 
five  it  up.  And  when  Peter  urged  them  to  be  baptized  and  become  mem- 
bers of  the  gospel  church;  we  may  easily  imagine  what  a  struggle  would 
be  occasioned  by  their  parental  feeling.  And  if  they  had  expressed  them 
in  words,  they  would  say,  "What?  Shall  we  abandon  the  covenant  of  our  God 
and  the  promise  to  our  children?  Shall  we  become  members  of  the  church 
ourselves,  and  ieave  our  children  with  outcasts  and  heathens?"  No,  sayf 
Peier,for  under  the  new  dispensation  which  is  now  commenced,'  'the  prom- 
ise is  unto  you  and  to  YOUR  CHILDREN."  Nor  is  it  confined  to  you 
Jews,  for  it  is  now  to  be  extended  to  the  Gentiles  "To  all  that  are  afar 
off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  The  promise  is  99 
wide  as  to  include  parents  and  their  children,  and  it  is  so  long  as  to  reach 
to  the  ends  of  ihe  earth,  "to  all  whota  the  Lord  shall  call."  Therefore, 
"Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you." 

Now  upon  the  supposition  that  Peter  meant  to  exclude  infants  from  bap- 
flam,  we  make  him  argue  thus — "The promise  is  to  you,  O  ye  Jews;  there 
for«  be  baptized.  The  promise  is  also  to  your  children,  but  they  are  not 
to  be  baj  tized.  Or,  though  the  promise  was  once  to  your  children,  it  is 
now  revoked."  Surely  Peter  did  not  argue  thus.? 

In  1  Cor.  VII.  14,  Paul  says,  "The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified 
by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  by  the  husband;  else  were  your 
children  unclean,  now  they  are  HOLY."  How  are  the  children  of  belio 
vers  holy,  unless  in  this  sense  that  they  are  included  in  the  rovenant  and 
are  by  dedication  holy  to  the  Lord.  Those  who  render  the  passage  "else 
were  your  children  illegitimate,  now  they  are  legitimate'1''  make  the  apos- 
tle reason  most  absurdly;  lor  they  make  him  to  say,  that  if  neither  parent 
is  a  believer,  the  children  are  illegitimate!! 

Household  baptism. 

Out  of  six  or  seven  baptisms   of  which  we  have   a   circumstantial   ac- 


*  I  consider  the  assertion  of  some  miters,  that  Peter  meant  only  full  grown 
.children,  because  that  small  children  are  Dot  capable  of  the  blessings  of  tbe 
*pirit,  as  to  ridiculous  to  deserve  a  refutation 


2i) 

eount  in  the  book  of  Acts,  as  occurring  under  the  gospel  dispensation, 
there  are  at  least  three  instances  in  which  the  whole  Household  wet* 
baptized.  And  this  is  as  large  a  proportion  as  could  be  expected,  aa 
some  of  them  certainly  had  no  fimilies.  It  is  said  of  Lydia,  Acis  XVI. 
15,  "She  was  baptized  and  her  houselialdP  Some  Baptists  have  indeed 
supposed  that  her  family  must  have  consisted  entirely  of  adulf.  believers 
because  Paul  and  Silas  are  said  to  hive  comforted  the  brethren  ai  act 
house,  (v.  40)  But  tins  is  a  great  mistake.  And  if  you  look  at  the  3d. 
and  4th.  verses,  you  will  find  that  Timothy  occompaned  the  apos:les  to 
Philippi;&.  ifyoure-.d  v.s.  10,11,  12  you  will  see  that  Luke,  the  writer  of 
the  account,  joined  them  atTroas;  for  tie  speaks  in  the  first  person,  ^lous- 
ing from  Troas,  WE  c  i:ne  to  Samothr.acia, — and  thence  to Pbilippi  " 
From  the  fifteenth  verse  vou  will  also  learn  that  Luke  was  one  of  llmso 
whom  Lydia  constrain  I  <>  abide  at  her  house,  '.'and  sheccnst-ainedUS" 
Bo  then  it  was  not  Lydia's  children  but  their  ministerial  brethren:,  that 
Paul  and  Silas  comforted  at  her  house  after  tiieir  liberation  from  prison. 
At  any  rate  Lydia  appears  to  have  been  the  only  believer  in  the  family. — 
It  i3  said  of  her  alone,  "whose  heart  the  Lord  opened  that  she  attended 
to  the  things  spoken  by  Paul"  (v.  li)  and  again  "she  besought  us  saying, 
.'if  ye  have  judged  ME  to  be  faithful  come  into  my  house.1'  She  docs  not 
say  "if  ye  have  judged  US  to  be  faithf-il  as  though  there  were  oihev  bo- 
havers  in  the  family,  but  "If  ye  have  judged  ME  to  be  faithful. 

f  f  is  remarked  by  ('reek  scholirstkat  the  word  oiko",  translated  "house- 
hold," in  more  than  fifty  piace3  in  the  Septuagint  signifies  one's  children* 
and  that  when  servants  and  lodgers  are  designated,  the  word  used  isoihia. 
Now  the  word  used  to  express  the  family  of  Lydia  is  oihoz,  v:rJ  would  bo 
understood  by  every  Jew  who  read  Greek,  to  mean  her  chiidrGfi.  And  in- 
deed the  Syriac  translation  of  the  New  Test  amen  t^made  hear  the  times 
of  the  Apostles,  says  "and  when  she  [Lydia]  was  baptized  and  the  CHIL- 
DREN OFHErl  JOUSE."  Now  if  the  sacred  writer  did  not  mean  to  in- 
timate that  her  children  were  baptized,  why  did  he  employ  a  word  .which 
every  Greek  scholar  in  those  days  would  take  to  mean  children,  li  id  also 
worthy  of  notice,  that  this  same  word  is  used  in  1  Cor.  I.  1G,  where  Paul 
•ays  "I  baptized  the  (oikos)  bojusehobl,  pftStephanus,"  which  ir.eans  that 
he  baptized  Stephanui  childrei  .  now  that  s  ■  ie  have  argu&l  thai  'ha 
household  of  Stopharfis  rqust  have  b^en  all  adult  believer.-;,  be.ause  we 
read  (1  Cor.XVI,  lrf)  that  his  HOUSE  "addicted  themselves  to  the  min- 
istry of  the  saints."  But  here  the  Greek  .  >rd  used  is  not  oihoe,  children, 
but  oikia,  servants,  and  these,  not  the  children  are  said  to  have  a.iriisfered 
to  ihe  saints.  So  in  the  account  of  u.c  baptism  of  tlie  Jailors  faariiiy  the 
the  word  u?r  J  is  oikos,  and  it  is  added  that"he  was  baptized,  :,  wdA  X, 
HIS,  straightway"*  Acts  XVI,  33.  Nor  Jo  we  meet  v.  )i<:i  ace 

*  It  is  said  "that  the  apostles  spake, the  word  to  ;ss" 

bin  this  is  xxj  more  tuan  may  he  said  oHmy  me  who  jn     t- Ra- 

tion i;i  which  notwithstanding  there   may  ho  many  i  the 

34  verse  in  which  we  are  told,  that- "lie  rejoiced  Ik  lieviu       i        ,1   wii      t>H 
his  house,"  prove  his  family  to  have  been  all  believers,  for  tiic  Gfri?*U 
ptpiJfd'c-is,heli?ving,  is  in  the  singula!!    number  denoting  I  ral  thfl  Ja  : 
lievei  himself  ami  nothing  more.  "He  believing  in  G^l  rejpieucl  »a  or 
al!  his  house"  i*  the  true  «u easing. 


30 

•fa  person  bora  of  Christian  parents,  being  baptized  himself  in  adult 
years. 

Thus  yoa  see  that  the  New  Testament  furnishes  sufficient  evidence  that 
children  are  to  he  baptized ;  and  if  the  sacred  writers  had  employed  any 
other  language  on  the  subject  than  they  did,  I  do  not  ihink  itr.oukl  sat- 
isfy our  Baptist  friends.  If  for  instance,  the  scriptures  had  said  that  ^little 
children"  belong  to  the  elwrch,  they  would  have  argued  that  adult  belie- 
vers are  sometimes  called  little  children.  If  we  had  been  told  in  the  word, 
that  children  have  a  right  to  baptism  they  would  have  explained  the 
expression  of"full  grown  children.1'  If  it  had.  been  said  that  the  Apostle* 
took  up  little  children  hi  their  arms  and  blessed  them,  they  would  have  con- 
tended that  they  must  have  been  children  of  at  least  10  or  12  years  old  -  • 
It  is  not  difficult  to  evade  the  force  of  a  passage  H  it  contain  a  sentiment 
repugnant  to  our  feelings* 

I  have  room  only  to  answer  a  few  objections. 

1.  It  is  objected  that  infants  ought  not  to  be  bound  to  serv»  God  before 
they  can  give  their  consent.  1  answer,  why  did  God  require  that  little 
children  should  be  bound  by  circumcision  to  obey  his  law?  Children  in 
all  countries  are  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  country  before  thgy  ha\~  con- 
sented to  their. ;  why  then  should  they  not  be  re  mired  to  obey  God  ? 

2.  The  question  is  asked  "Vihat  good  can  it  do  to  baptize  infants?" 
In  reply,  I  ask  '■Wkai  good  can  it  do  to  baptize  adults?"  If  it  be  said  that 
edults  can  undersiand  the  obligation  laid  on  them  in  baptism.  I  answer, 
Bo  can  parents  understand  tlieir  duty  when  they  dedicate  their  children  to 
God;  and  so  £an  children  at  an  early  ffffebe  mad  •■  foumlcrslu.'id^some- 
thing  of  sl.e:r  privileges  and  their  duty^  The  Apostle  asks  the  question  in 
Rom.  Ill  1  "Wiiat  profit  is  there  of  circumcision ?M  And  Je  answers 
the  ]uestion  "MUCH  EVERY  WAY."  So  we  reply  to  these  who  ask, 
what  profit  there  is  of  infant  baptism,  MUCH  EVERY  WAY,"  at  least  m, 
much  as  there  was  in  infant  circumcision.  If  parents  are  only  faithful  to 
their  cnildren,  the-  blessing  of  the  covenant  will  descend  upon  them,  Isa. 
XLIV,  3.  Gen.  XVII,  7.  Prov.  XXII.  6. 

JBot  says  one,  "Why  cannot  I  bring  up  my  children  as  well  without 
having  them  baptized  "  But  you  might  as, well  s-i  "Why  cannot  I  serve 
God  myself  without  going  to  the  Lord's  table  otattending  U>  any  cf 
GodV  ordinance  "  One  reply  to  all  this  is  sufficient  ;<  Who  art  thou  O 
man  that  replvest  against  God?" 

3.  It  is  objected  that  infants  cannot  have  faith  and  repentance  end 
therefore  ought  not  to  b<  baptized.  I  answer,  neither  does  God  require 
faith  and  repentance  of  infants.  B:it  sayf  tiie  objector,  "the  scriptures 
Bay  'believe  and  be  baptized.^"  No;  L*e  exact  words  of  the  scripture 
are  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  belie- 
veth  not  sh'dl  be  damned  •"  Mark  XVI.  16.  If  we  apply  any  part  of  this 
passage  to  infants  we  must  apply  i he  whole  to  1  hem,  and  if  we  argue 
from  it  that  they  cannot  be  baptized  f.<r  want  of  faith  to  be  consistent 
we  shall  havs  to  say  that  they  must  be  damned  for  want  of  faith.  But  if 
a  want  of  fa  th  will  not  exclude  them  from  saltation  why  should  it  ex- 
clude them  from  baptism.  So  again  the  scriptures  say,  "If  any  would 
»ot  work  neither  should  he  eat."'    Are  weio  apply  this  passage  to  infants 


31 

•rdf<>:'.id  them  to  eat  because  they  cannot  work?    Neither  then  should 
we  apply  'he  other  passage  to  the  case  of  infants. 

Circumcision,  says  Paul,  wr.s  "a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith."-* 
But  did  Abraham  object  to  apply ingihat  jeal  to  his  children*  Did  he 
say  "Lord  why  should  I  "rply  'he  seal  of  FAITH,  to  ny  child.  Let  me 
wait  till  he  has  faith?"  No;  the  holy  patnarch  cheerfully  submitted  to 
the  direction  of  the  Lord.     Let  us  imitate  his  excmple. 

4.  Jt  if  slanderously  affirmed  that  iifant  baplhmis  a  device  of  PcjiC' 
ry  and  teas  not  practized  by  the  ancient  churches*  1  trust  however  that 
I  have  shown  that  it  was  piactiscdby  the  apostles;  and  a  slightexamina* 
tion  of  history  will  show  that  it  was  universally  practised  in  the  succeed- 
ing ages  of  the  church.  Some  Baptist  writers  indeed  sensible  that  the  tesh 
timony  of  history  is  against  them,  slander  the  ancient  Fathers  as  though 
they  were  not  competent  witnesses  in  the  case.  Cut  if  they  committed 
some  errors  in  point  of  doctiine  this  would  not  disqualify  them  for  tesuV 
lying  to  facts.  They  could  surely  make  no  mistake  as  to  the  fact  whelh-' 
er  infant  biptism  was  practised  in  their  day  or  not;  and  what  do  thty 
Bay? 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  forty  years  after  the  apostles,  and  was  put 
to  death  for  the  gospel,  says,  We  hate  net  received  the  carnal  lt,f  tpit* 
itual  circumci&ion  ly  baptism,  and  it  is  enjoined  on  all  jcrions  to  re- 
ceive it  inthe  same  manner.  Here  baptism  is  distinctly  recognized  as 
holding  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  as  applicable  to  the  same  subjects. 
The  same  writer  says  that  many  were  living  in  his  d;»y  "who  weie  disci- 
pled  unto  Christ  when  they  wore  LITTLE  CHILL-KEN."  Now  infants 
are  called  disciples,  Acts  XV.  10,  and  these  could. have  Leen  made  such 
enly  by  I;  pi  ism. 

Ti?neus  who  was  born  before  the  death  of  the  apostle  John,  and  often 
«at  lender  the  preaching  of  Poilycarp,  John's  disciple,  affords  the  most 
•atisfactory  proof,  in  his  writings,  of  the  prevalence  of  infant  bap- 
lism.  in  his  time. 

Turtulltan,  who  flourished  about  an  hundred  years  after  the  apostles 
specking  of  the  ce.'obra'ed  passage  in  1  Cor.  VII.  14.  "The  unbelieving 
husband,"  says  inexplanatiun  of  it,  'Jlf  either  of  the  parents  were  Chris- 
tian, the  children  were  enrolled  in  Christ  ly  early  hapiu  m. 

Origen,  who  was  born  eighty  the  years  after  the  apostles  and  who  was 
celebrated  for  his  learning  and  piety,  declares  that  "The  church  had  a 
^command  from  the  apostles  to  baptize  infants ."  And  he  brings  foiwrrd 
the  practice  of  infant  baptism  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  human  depra- 
vity. His  words  are,  "Infants  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins;, 
uhen  if  there  utre  noikh  g  in  infant;  which  needed  forgiveness  the  graco 
of  baptism  would  be  needless  to  .lien-." 

'Cypiian,  153  years  after  the  aynsile?,  mentions  that  a  question  arose  in 
his  day,  whether  infants  should  be  baptized  on  the  8th  day  for  whether 

*  Those  who  say  that  infant  baptism,  on  the  mode  by  sprinkling,  origina- 
ted from  Popery  cannot  produce  u.  particle  of  authentic  history  to  support 
their  assertion.  The  truth  is,  that  all  those  sects  which  never  suomitted 
to  the  Pope's  authority,  hut  even  contended  against  him,  do  now, and  always 
did  practice  infant  baptism.  "Witness  the  Greek  or  eastern  church,  the  Sy- 
rian church  and  several  others. 


32 

arv  other  day  would  be  (suitable.  This  question  was  submit  tod  to  a  conneil 
cf  t>G  bishops,  assembler'  atl'arihage  fromdilTerent  parls  of  the  church  Th« 
deci  ion  of  the  council  is  preserved  al  kngth  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian, 
and  it  is  rem  rkable  that  not  one  of  the  bisheps  present,  intimated  a 
doubt  of  the  propriety  of  infant  baptism. 

Passing  by  the  testimonies  cf  Ambrose,  Chrysc istom,  Jerome  and  others 
we  come  to  that  of  Augustine,  the  great  extent  of  whose  learning  entitle* 
him  to  credit  in  matters  of  history.  Kc  says,  •  That  he  had  never  heard  of 
<i  iy  Christian,  Catholic,  or  sectary  who  denied  infant  baptism."  And  again, 
"That  no  'Christian  denied  it  to  be  useful  or  necessary." 

Ptlaoius  lived  about  &30  years  after  the  Apostles  and  carried  on  a  con- 
troversy with  Auf'stine  on  original  sin  Augustine  asked  him  why  infanta 
were  baptized  if  they  had  no  sin?  Pelagiusdid  not  answer  Litis  argument. 
A-  last  s  .  "  one  chajged  him  with  denying  infant  baptism,  as  a  supposed 
conseqwnce  of  his  tenet.  Pelagius  replied,  "That  men  slandered  him  as 
t-iotik'i  he  denied  the  sacrarnent  ofbajJlism  to  infants,  and  that  he  had  ncv* 
cr  heard  of  any  one,  not  even  i'hemotl  IMPIOUS  HERETIC,  that  would 
g  of  infante "' 

br.  Wall,  tist  in  respect  to  the  mode,  and  who  studied  the 

history  of  ml  I  baptism  many  years,  thus  sums  up  the  evidence  on  both 
sides.  "For  the  /iiv  -irist,  there  appears  only  one  man 

(TertuiyarVwl  ilhedelaj   c-f  infant  baptism  in  some  cases,  and 

che  Gregory  who  did  rrhops  pnietise  such  delay  in  the  case  ofljisown 
chidr:  ;  >it  NO  SOC1E  :- Y  of  mo.:,  so  thinking  or  practising,  or  anyone, 
man  saying  it  was  unlawful  to  baptize  infants.  So  in  the  next  700  years, 
there  is  not  so  much  as  one  man  to  be  found,  who  cither  spoke  for  or  prac- 
tised such  cLlay,  but  al!  the  contrary.  And  when  in  the  year  1130,  one 
Bf  "t  among  tne  Waldenses,  or  A!bi£.>cnses  declared  against  the  baptizing 
of  infants  ;  s  being  incapable  ofsalcation,  ihe  main  body  of  that  people  i  j- 
ject»d  their  opinion  and  they  of'ti.em  who  held  ii,  quickly  disappeared, 
there  being  no  mure  persons  heard  of  holding  that  tenet  until  the  rising 
of  the  German  antipedobaptists  in  1522. 

Foran  accountof  the  origin  of  the  first  Baptist  churches,  see  Mo3beim*B 
Eccl:  Hist:  Cent.  XVI.  Sect.  III.  Chap.  HI. 


